The Israel Darwin Awards

Turkish Criticism of Israel or Anti-semitism?

2011-09-13T10:35:00.004+03:00

If Turkish PM Erdogan criticizes Israel, is it antisemitism?

Because of recent developments, Israel is again being accused of hypocrisy and attempting to deflect legitimate criticism of its policies, by claiming that its accusers are antisemitic. Erdogan himself recently made this claim in an interview. I think this warrants a cool headed analysis.

Firstly, let me state that disagreement with Israel's policies is legitimate and not intrinsically antisemitic. Within the Jewish and Israeli communities, we have highly charged and sometimes bitter disagreements about Israel's actions. Its is certainly completely acceptable for other countries to do so as well. When, however, does legitimate debate cross the line into racism and bigotry, of which antisemitism is a subset?

I think the question can by analysed on two levels:

1. Motive. Although we can never really know what resides in the hearts of men, the context and history of an accuser cannot be seperated from the content of his words. If Bin Laden was still alive and was to criticise Israel's blockade of Gaza, I don't think anybody could deny that his accusations are antisemitic. This is because of what governs his logic. He wants the blockade broken not because of humanitarian concerns, but rather because the Jews are infidels, he doesn't think that the Jew's state has a right to defend itself and because he wants harm to befall it. This would be antisemitism. Erdogan himself denies antisemitism and had not taken any actions against the Jews in his own country. Perhaps his motives are to restore Turkey's position as a regional superpower and to the glory of the days of old. We don't know for sure. One can suspect Muslim antisemitic instincts, but this would be hard to demonstrate objectively.

2. Content. Here is where I think Erdogan's claims fail. While Palestinian/Islamic rockets target civilians and fall on Israeli communities, he is conspicuously silent. The same goes for other terrorist attacks on Israel. No claims of "inhumane" behavior, terrorism, ignoring international laws, etc. He is not even a party to the conflict, as the Gazans are. Yet, when Israel takes any actions to defend the Jewish State from such attack (whether violent, such as the Gaza invasion, or non-violent, such as the blockade) , Erdogan calls us inhumane violators of international laws and child murderers, and that the naval blockade is a war crime. Setting aside for the moment that his statements are factually wrong (as evidence by the UN's Palmer report which Turkey itself agreed to), what we see here is the sign of a double standard. What is legitimate for the Palestinians (firing rockets) and for Turkey (attacking the Kurds), is illegal and immoral for the Israeli state, when attempting to protect Jews. This is pure hypocrisy, racism, and therefore antisemitic. Therefore Turkish denials of antisemitism are simply lies. True, it is veiled and subtle antisemitism, not foaming at the mouth Nazi-like propoganda. But its in the same league as Iranian President Ahmedinejad's holocaust-denying venom.

Tom Friedman and the "Arab Spring"

2011-09-11T08:37:00.006+03:00

Ever since a Tunesian man self-immolated in December 2010, a wave of protests has shaken the Arab world. Romantically referred to as the "Arab Spring", these events have inspired optimism for many in the western world, who were quick to joyously proclaim an Arab embracing of democracy. "The Arabs are ready for freedom", we were told. Tom Friedman of the New York Times was quick to adopt this theme, hailing the "Facebook generation" of youth who will bring enlightenment and democracy to Egypt and other countries. Well, it hasn't taken long for us to sober up and receive a bucket of cold water in our faces. Those of us in Israel and elsewhere who were skeptical and warned of the threat of extremism, were ridiculed as naysayers and hypocrites. If we enjoyed democracy, we were asked, how could we deny others the same rights?

Well, the answer has come more quickly than I anticipated. Egypt has decended into chaos, with the very real possibility of Muslim extremists being voted "democractically" into power. The Sinai desert has become a haven for a wide assortment of gangs and terrorists. Yesterday, a crazed mob attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo, while security services stood by. Only frantic calls from the White House induced the Egyptians to intervene and rescue the trapped embassy staff, avoiding a bloodbath. Protesters, foaming at the mouth with hatred and pumped up on testosterone, hailed the "victory", having restored Egypt's national "dignity". Am I living on another planet? Lynching an embassy restores dignity?

Elsewhere, Libya and Yemen have decended into civil war. Syria is on its way, with blood flowing in the streets. Although there was no revolution in Turkey, which used to be a loyal pro western ally, it has "democratically" moved into the same orbit as the Islamic extremists in Iran. It is no longer a reliable NATO nation.

So, Tom, where is your Facebook revolution? How'd that work out for ya? I know you'd love to blame Israel's Palestinian problem for everything, but that would be too much even for your rhetoric.

An Open Letter to the Parents of Cpl. Gilad Shalit

2010-07-04T08:17:00.008+03:00

Dear Noam and Aviva,

The recent media attention given to the cause of getting your son released by his kidnappers gives all of Israel an opportunity to contemplate a terrible dilemma.

As a father of 4 children, including one who currently serves in the IDF, and another who is to be drafted this month, I can strongly empathize with your suffering. I can't begin to imagine how much you miss Gilad, and words cannot properly express the feelings of sadness, uncertainty and anxiety that you must be experiencing. In a way, Gilad's fate is worse than that of a soldier who is killed, G-d forbid, whose family experiences the acute mourning for their loss, but can then try somehow to move on.

You have the respect and understanding of every citizen in this country, for your efforts on behalf of obtaining your son's release.

However, as you must certainly know, the personal emotions and pain of an individual family, however great, cannot be used as the sole basis of determining a country's policy. Unfortunately, the recent media circus surrounding this week's march highlight a cynical reality in Israel: Your son's cause has been hijacked by certain politicians for their own personal welfare and for promoting a particular leftist agenda. Do you think that the country's leftist politicians actually care more about your son than Prime Minister Netanyahu, or other leaders from the right? Sadly, this is not the case. Since the Israeli left will use any opportunity to attack the Prime Minister, and see Israel's imprisonment of Palestinian terrrorists as illegitimate prima facie, they will cynically run to your side and pretend to care about our "sons" and "kids" more than anybody else.

Not being in your situation, I certainly cannot lecture you about patriotism and intergrity. However, I am struck by the many false slogans that are used in the media. The biggest lie is that there is a "contract" that says that we only agree to send our sons to the army because they know that the country will do everything for them. This is not so! We send our children to the army because we must. We have no choice (Those youth who evade the draft will do so in any case for their own reasons, having nothing to do with Gilad). Circumstances have dictated that Israel must devote its most valuable resource, its young people, to defend the country. Thus, it is the job of the IDF to defend the country, not the reverse! Yes, we do what we can to maintain the welfare of our soldiers. But we cannot lose sight of the purpose of any army: to defend its citizens. This obviously entails the risk of capture or death of soldiers. To say that a country's civilians are expected to sacrifice their safety and security, in order to secure the welfare of its soldiers-- this is a gross misrepresentation of the purpose of an army and is a moral distortion. It also contradicts common sense.

Another false argument that is frequently heard is by Israelis who purport to be experts on subject of the Jewish value of human life. Judaism says that individual human life or freedom is more valuable than anything, they claim, and therefore Gilad must be released at any price. While this may sound politically correct in liberal humanist circles, it is a naive and incorrect interpretation of classic Jewish sources, which clearly place a limit on the price of "pidyon shvuyim", paying ransom for captives. Historically, leaders and rabbis in Jewish communities clearly understood that, while human life is indeed sacrosanct, the survival of the community is more important, and that one should not pay too high a price so as to encourage more kidnapping and thus further endangering the whole community.

Much has already been written regarding the cost to Israel's regional strategic standing and civilian security that will be exacted if we release a thousand Palestinian terrorists into the territories. I won't expand on this here, except to say that as much as I have to look into your eyes and feel your pain, I have the same moral requirement to do so to the hundreds of victims of past and future terrorist attacks. Israel's past "deals" with its terrorist enemies have demonstrated that this is a very real consideration.

It is possible that Gilad will only be released in another 5 or 10 years. It is also possible that he will never be released and will die in captivity. This is a sad reality, here and in other parts of the world where people are kidnapped. And nowhere else, do families and their supporters expect the country to sacrifice its supreme national interests for the sake of a captive. I say this with pain, but it is the truth, and I think that many, if not most, Israelis feel this way. We agree with the Prime Minister's statement-- "not at any cost". In the past, lopsided and misguided deals were made, but we do not have to repeat these errors. It is unfortunate that your son is paying the price of these mistakes.

In the meantime, your efforts to secure your son's release should be directed toward Israel's military establishment and Hamas, and not at pressuring the Israeli government for concessions to her enemies.

Having said that, I would supports a mass release of Palestinian prisoners, as part of a general exchange of POWs that occurs when a state of war ends and there is real peace between us and the Palestinians. Perhaps this will occur sooner than we think. We can only hope.

Ipad Mania

2010-05-25T08:38:00.003+03:00

No, I have not bought one and I have no intention of doing so.

Yes, the Ipad is exceedingly cool. Its a great toy. But is it really useful?

For getting to the answer to this question, it is useful to compare the Ipad to the Ipod Touch. The Ipad and Ipod touch do the same things. Media, email, internet, entertainment. The Ipod Touch fits in your pocket or purse, the Ipad does not. They also share what they do not do, or at least, do not do well. They cannot do serious productivity work, such as using office. I know that there is an office application for both devices. But it would be a joke to think that you could seriously sit on this device and type a long document. Yes, you can attach a keyboard. But then, a notebook computer already has one. Also, file management is seriously crippled on the Ipad: only through Itunes or email, if Wi-fi or 3G is available. No USB port. No personal folders. So it cannot replace a conventional notebook computer in its current form.

There are a lot of reports of how ackward it is to hold the Ipad for more than 5-10 minutes. It may seem cool to sit on the sofa with your legs up and the Ipad resting on them, (like in Apple's promotional video) but seriously, how often/long can you work that way? If you put the Ipad flat on a table in front of you, the viewing angle is wrong. The Ipod Touch is much easier to use while sitting, reclining or even lying in bed propped up by a pillow.

It seems to me that the Ipad's main use is as a household toy/entertainment device. If household members want to watch a quick youtube video or play a game, they can go to their Ipad. Maybe it would also be a good home calendar/rolodex substitute. But if I need computing away from home, I'll take my laptop. If I want portable media, I'll take my Ipod.

The Ipad seems to be a device looking for a use. Steve Jobs is famous for his reality distortion field (RDF), in which he persuades his followers that any development is a "revolution" and that a toy is really an invaluable productivity tool. Rather than being a productivity tool, the Ipad is more likely to be a big time waster.

Another Lop-Sided Prisoner Exchange on the Way

2009-12-21T08:23:00.004+02:00

I shudder to think of the massive strategic damage that Israel will inflict upon itself when it approves (and I'm sure it will) the latest deal for Gilad Shalit. No, it's not fair that Gilad Shalit and his parents should shoulder the responsibility for Israel's strategic position in the Middle East. But it wasn't "fair" that he was kidnapped in the first place.

The released terrorists will return to organizing and carrying out terrorist activity. Nobody questions this, given the history of these releases in the past. Hamas will rightfully claim a major victory against Israel, which will strike a mortal blow against Abbas and his Fatah organization. Nothing Israel could do would prove more clearly to Hamas that kidnapping pays off and so does force. The damage to Israel's deterrence and diplomatic status in the region will be incalculable, and will dwarf the harm that Israel suffered in the Lebanon War of 2006. Hamas and Hizbullah will be emboldened, and Israel will hold its breath, until the next kidnapping or wave of terrorist attacks. Yet Israel's leaders and media continue to march forward in a march of the mad.

I feel sorry for the Shalit family, and I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes. But I cannot imagine any other country acting in such an irrational way, contrary to its supreme national interest. There are those who argue that Shalit's release is necessary because of a "contract" with draftees, that anything will be done to secure their release, and that boys won't agree to be drafted otherwise. But I have seen no evidence of this. For the past 3 years since Shalit's kidnapping, there has been no such phenomenon. Motivation is high. Any draft dodging is done for other ideological reasons, having nothing to do with Shalit.

Israel needs to act like a proud and strong country, willing to act (and suffer if necessary) to secure its national interests.

An Open Letter to the World from Israel (WARNING-ADULT LANGUAGE)

2009-09-27T08:25:00.004+02:00

Dear Friends and Enemies of Israel:

Last Thursday, Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to the UN. This speech pretty much expresses how the vast majority of Israelis feel. We are not surprised but nonetheless outraged at the UN Goldstone report. We are outraged at the audience given at the UN to a venomous, anti-semitic, holocaust-denying lunatic who openly states that radical Islam is a gift the world. We are outraged that an American president, the leader of the free world and probably our only natural ally, refers to Jews living in the West Bank as "illegitimate".

Perhaps the most important point that Netanyahu made in his speech, relates to demands from the Arabs and friends alike (as well as some on the Left in Israel) that Israel needs to "take risks" for peace. In a most hollow, superficial sense this rings true. Leaders who make peace need to be "brave" and sometimes make unpopular decisions. But someone who takes a "risk" is gambling. Usually one gambles on something that they can afford to lose. What exactly are the Palestinians gambling on, that they stand to lose? Very little. In fact they stand only to gain.

Israel on the other hand, is gambling everything. It is being asked to throw its money into the poker pot. Now, Israel has a little experience in the matter, beginning with the "risks" it took for Oslo, the withdrawal from Lebanon, up to the disengagement from Gaza. Many in Israel argued that by taking these risks and demonstrating Israel's willingness to compromise, that we would gain the good will not only of the Palestinians, but of Israel's friends--and that if we had to defend ourselves from a new, weakened position, we would be understood, and the world would give us backing for legitimate self-defence.

Sadly, this has not been the case. In each instance--Operation Defensive Shield, the Lebanon War, the separation fence, and most recently, Operation Cast Lead---Israel is being taken to task for merely defending itself. So if the world is going to forbid us from defending ourselves, why risk anything?

You know what? Israel wants peace, but not a suicidal peace. But this is exactly what the Palestinians want, as demonstrated by their adamant refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State, along with their demands for repatriation of refugees.

So I say fuck them, and fuck the Europeans and Obama.

We're not taking another goddamn risk, not even for a grain of sand.

The Palestinians want a state? Fine, let them work on building one from the land they now have. When and if, and only if, they (along with their Arab supporters) can unequivocally demonstrate that they are capable of behaving like a normal peaceful country, and show that they recognize a Jewish state, then maybe I'll be willing to compromise.

Until then, you the Arabs, Obama, and the Europeans can just fuck off.

Things I Do With My Ipod Touch

2009-08-17T14:13:00.004+03:00

I think that Apple's Ipod Touch has got to be one of the coolest and most useful gadgets ever made. Maybe the Iphone beats it because of the phone functionality, but you have to pay through the nose for that, whereas, with the $230 ipod touch you get 95% of the usefullness of the iphone withough committing to a $100/month contract (I have a free cell phone through work, which I don't want to give up anyway). The only disadvantage is that you need to have Wifi access for functions which need the internet, while the iphone uses the cellular network. But nowadays almost anywhere you go you can pick up a Wifi signal, so this isn't such a limitation any more.

So here is my list of things that I do on my ipod touch:

1. PDA functions:
-address book
-calendar/scheduler (syncs with Google Calendar!)
-note taker
2. Clock and Alarm
3. Stopwatch/Timer (for timing physical performance, which I do in my medical practice)
4. Check the weather (with built in Yahoo Weather program)
5. Check stocks (with built in stock market graphing program)
6. Check Shabbat times (with free Shabbat program)
7. Browse the internet
8. Get and write E-mail
9. Listen to music
10. Listen to lectures and other podcasts, at home, while jogging, and while commuting.
11. Play Sudoku and other games
12. Use Calculator and unit conversions
13. Read e-books
14. Read medical texts and check drugs.
15. Watch YouTube videos or other video podcasts
16. Reference Wikipedia with free program.
17. Dictionary
18. Get myself to sleep with soothing sound effects (Ambiance)
19. Store photos of my family to show people
20. transfer Office and pdf documents from my PC for viewing and/or editing
21. Follow Facebook
22. Google instant messaging

Since I have the first-generation model, which doesn't have the ability to record sounds, I can't use it for Skype VoIP phone calls, but that would definitely be on my list if I had the 2G model. Apple is also hinting about a new model with a built-in camera. Maybe for Chanuka...

Except when you need to type long documents, the ipod touch can replace your computer. The sleek design and well-thought out touch interface make it truly user-friendly and fun. The most recent firmware update 3.0 added some badly needed functions including cut and paste, and full Hebrew support. (In the past, if you wanted those things, you had to "jailbreak", basically which means hacking the built in firmware to allow non-Apple approved software to be loaded. This often affects the speed and stability of the system).

I carry around my ipod touch just about everywhere I go, since it is useful in so many situations. Apple really struck gold with this product, and did so at a competitive price. No other comparable priced PDA or phone can touch it (sorry about the pun...). We'll see if Microsoft's Zune or some of the new smartphones can compete.

Straw Man Arguments of the Israeli Left

2009-07-26T08:06:00.002+03:00

This article in Haaretz is a very good example of meaningless and hypocritical posturing on the part of the Israeli Left. The editorialist drones on about how the Netanyahu government and the right are needlessly picking a fight with the US, and intentionally painting Obama and the US as an Israeli "enemy". He then issues a dire warning about Israel putting itself among the enemy countries of the US. Only in the end does Barel attempt to make a cogent argument as to the justification of the American position and a proper Israeli response to it.

Nobody in the Israeli government is portraying the US as an "enemy". Furthermore, no previous Israeli government, including the left leaning ones of Barak and Olmert, agreed to a total freeze of building in the territories including East Jerusalem. Now that a right wing government is being asked to do this, the left is screaming hysterically.

So rather than make an argument based on its own merits, Barel and the left prefer to create an imagined but non-existent right wing demon in order to falsely "prove" how correct the left is. This is a transparent straw man argument.

The "Truth" about "Settlements"

2009-07-19T12:42:00.004+03:00

My wife and I spent this past Shabbat with our daughter and her family, who live in Noqdim, a small "legal" settlement in the Gush Etzion area. The air is clear and dry , and the view overlooking the Judean desert is beautiful in its starkness. From the porch of my daughter's apartment, we were able to see the mountains on the Jordanian side of the border, which along with the Judean desert mountain range form the borders of the dead sea. Also within our view, about a mile away, was an "illegal" outpost of Rehav'am. There, on a desolate flat between two hills in the desert, are five or six caravans, a water tank, a few tents, and a small dirt path leading up to the settlement.

I thought to myself, sarcastically, "these settlements are really standing in the way of peace." Look, everywhere you see, peace is spreading, taking hold, and these settlers, with their bare hands, are blocking peace.

How ridiculous. Even the Arabs know its ridiculous. Perhaps Barack Obama is the only one who doesn't know.

We are all familiar with the arguments regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Each side has its narrative, along with "proofs" of their factual truth and righteousness of their position. Supporters and opponents adopt one or the other of these narratives, and nobody can change their minds. Israel has very real security concerns and national interests at stake. Israel also has proven that it is willing to dismantle settlements if necessary. In the framework of a peace accord, the settlements will be negotiated, and everybody knows that Israel will make concessions. But these arguments make no difference to Israel's opponents.

The real question is the balance of power and US national interests.

Demanding the Israel freeze all construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unfair, against all previous understanding with the US, and won't bring peace any closer.

But: there are about 300+ million Arabs, and perhaps another 900 million Muslims in the world. There are 6 million Israelis and another 8 million Jews worldwide. It occurs to me periodically, that we would not even be having this discussion, had the population situation been reversed. Or if the Jews sat on oil fields, not the Arabs. Even if we were just 50 or 100 million Jews, we would not be having this discussion. But, to our regret, this is not the case. So arguments of logic, facts, or justness have limited value and relevance.

US national interests take this reality into account. How could they not? Sometimes extremist Israelis on the left and right forget this. The right, because they think that we can do whatever we want, no matter who opposes us. Caroline Glick is a good example of this. On the left, because of their arrogance, they assume that Israel can change the whole middle east all by itself by just "doing the right thing". The editors of Ha'aretz are typical of this view.

In my view, all we Israelis and Jews can do, is argue as forcefully as we can, and use wisely whatever power and strategic assets that we have. This means being careful and choosing our battles, while not crossing red lines that erode our prestige and position. The goal is to manage the situation, even if there is no solution in sight.

The Inkjet Printer Ripoff

2009-07-10T14:15:00.004+03:00

I know that this is off of my usual line of discussion, but I needed to blow off some steam about this one.

It is well known in the printer industry that low-end printers, especially inkjets, are essentially loss-leaders- the printer is sold at or below production cost, with the intention of making the profits by selling the supplies-- ink cartridges, print heads, etc.

While this is a legitimate strategy, buyers need to be aware of the efforts that the manufacturers make to commit the customer to ridiculously high future costs. One of the ways they do this is by forcing you to replace a color cartridge that empties (even if you don't need it) before allowing you to do ANY printing, even black. The printer, or other functions, simply shut down.

A few years ago, I bought a Brother multifunction printer, seemingly a bargain, to replace my ageing fax and printer. I printed in color rarely. However, the printer had self test cycles periodically, and every time that printer was turned on. When this happens, the printer would use a small amount of color inks. After a few months, the magenta ink ran out, shutting down to printer even to just black printing. I checked the forums and web site and found there was no way around this. You had to replace the magenta ink cartridge, costing $20. Then a month later, the yellow cartridge did the same. Mind you the black cartridge had plenty of ink in it.

I decided to cut my losses and dump the printer. I actually tried to GIVE the printer away, only 6 months old, to a neighbor, who decided that it wasn't worth the headache for him either. So I took a new, perfectly working printer, and put it out at the curb for collection. I have a friend who bought an Epson and has had the same problem.

I decided not to repeat this mistake again. I swore never to buy a Brother printer again. After doing some internet research and talking to salesman at Office Depot, I found a Lexmark printer that met my needs. It has the old fashion "HP style" setup with 2 print cartridges-- one color and one black. When the color one empties it gives you warnings but doesn't stop you from printing black. So far it works for me.

Out of curiosity I stopped by the local Office Depot again recently to see what on the market. This time I saw a fancy HP multifunction color printer at a "too good to be true" price-- 600NIS, including multiplexer (2 sided printing), built-in ethernet, fax, document feeder, etc. I came home and checked on the internet and read the reviews, which were pretty positive. The problem is that the reviewers aren't necessarily aware of this color ink requirement scam if they don't use the printer long enough. So I went onto ZAP, and Israeli internet comparison shopping site, which includes buyers reviews. Sure enough, this printer showed up, with several buyers complaining about their printer shutting down after only a few weeks use when one of the colors ran out. (This is especially frustrating after the purchase, because the manufacturers usually put in "starter" cartridges with low capacity).

I think that buyers should organize a boycott of these printers, and really let the manufacturers know that this arrangement is unacceptable, and deceptive to buyers.

Bibi got it right

2009-06-15T09:35:00.003+03:00

Bibi's speech at Bar Ilan last night was the right speech at the right time. From an Israeli perspective, I can't think of a better move.

In the introduction, he essentially expressed the "Jabotinskyan" view, that the source of our conflict with the Palestinians is a refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish entity here. It is not about settlements, land or borders. He demonstrated this claim's truth unequivocally by reminding the listeners of recent history. Every withdrawal, with or without an agreement, has been met by terror and demands for more concessions. Its important to understand this point, which isn't about being "right", its about being practical. For if the Palestinians reconcile themselves to a Jewish presence here, all other things will fall into place. Without it, no matter how many concessions Israel makes, peace will not get any closer.

In Netanyahu's acceptance of a Palestinian state, albeit one with limited powers, along with a demand to recongize Israel as a Jewish state, Bibi is calling the Palestinians' bluff. His conditions are not pre-conditions for negotiations. They are conceptual requirements for an agreement, without which there will be no peace. For if the Palestinians reject the idea of a dimilitarized country, and a Jewish Israel, what they are calling for is to Israel to agree to its own dismantlement. The Palestinians know that the significance of recognizing a Jewish state is that there will be no return of refugees to Israel.

So the Palestinians' reactions are telling. They say that Bibi's "conditions" are a non-starter, and that no Palestinian in a 1000 years will agree to his proposals. By their standards even the Geneva accords would be a non-starter. What are they saying? They are saying that refugees must be allowed to return to Israel, and that Palestine must have an army and be allowed to make treaties with anybody they want. This is the only logical way to understand their position. Any other leftist Israeli attempts to re-interpret Palestinian positions is delusion. No, the Palestinians will NOT be satisfied with a "theoretical" right of return, because Arab countries will not repatriate refugees and Palestine cannot absorb them. Will Lebanon grant citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians? What about Egypt and Syria?

What is truly astonishing is that the Palestinians actually expect Israel to knowingly and willingly agree to its own dismantlement, by allowing refugees in and allowing another armed entity arise in the West Bank which would threaten vital Israeli interests.

Lets hope the Obama wakes up before he forces Israel into harmful concessions which would eventually lead to another blowup in the region.

The New IPhone: Doesn't America have anything better to do?

2009-06-09T11:32:00.003+03:00

Don't get me wrong.

I like gadgets as much as the next guy. But lets face it: They are just expensive toys.
So why all of the hype?

With ubiquitous email, SMS, faxes and cellphones, working people are already as productive as they can be. So some new gadget isn't going to revolutionize the work place.

With all of America's problems with health care, the economy, real estate, the war on terror, North Korea, it seems to me that America is just turning to toys to anesthetize itself. Lets forget about the important issues, and find things to play with.

While there is nothing instrinsically wrong with gadgets, to me the Iphone hype is just part of America's social ills. Its economy is based on air. People are willing to spend their money (and to wait in long lines) to get the latest iphone, even though they have a perfectly working iphone that they bought a year ago. Plop down $2600 ($200+ $100/month for 2 years) just like that. They are willing to indebt themselves and buy SUVs which are about as practical as a combination candlestick/laser pointer and help make America dependent on foreign oil more than ever.

I recognize that consumerism as a fuel for economic growth, and this is America's history. But when it goes beyond any logic or reason, and is being subsidized by foreign debt, its just plain stupid. America's is falling into decadence. I don't blame Apple or the Iphone. I don't know who to blame, really. The consumers? The marketers? American culture?

The Seven Myths of the Palestinian-Israel Conflict

2009-05-24T11:27:00.002+03:00

With so much attention lately in the media about jump starting the so-called peace process between Israel and the Arabs, I thought it would be interesting to expose the common false assumptions underlying the statements from many world leaders:

1. The heart of Middle Eastern instability and terrorism is the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This the biggest granddaddy of them all. If we could only solve this conflict (presumably by forcing an "obstinate" Israel into concessions) we would remove the motivation and support of terrorists. The absurdity of this claim is obvious when one listens to Al Qeeda's and Iraqi insurgents own rhetoric-- which is based on fundamentalist political Islam. The Israel "problem" is just one of their many grievances against the west, and thus can never be pacified. The westerners are "heretics" and must be subjugated.

2. Israeli "settlements" are an obstacle to peace. This is easily rebutted by 2 simple facts:
a. Before 1970 their were no "settlements", yet the Palestinians were not exactly falling into our arms. b. Israel showed that it is not only willing to stop settlements but to actually dismantle them and expel settlers, as was done in the disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. What did the Palestinians do with the vacated lands and greenhouses? They turned them into launching pads for rockets targeting Israel's cities.

3. Regarding the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is the "occupier" of lands that were stolen from the Palestinians. The truth: the native inhabitants of Palestine never ruled themselves. They were always subject to rule of some occupying power. It never "belonged" to the Palestinians (other than individual land ownership) Currently, the area known as the West Bank is disputed territory. The Palestinians, as a national entity, did not come into being until the 1960s under the PLO.

4. Hamas and Hizbullah are not terrorist organizations but legitimate "resistance" movements who are simply trying to restore Arab rights. This is a subtle but sinister attempt to use the language of metaphor to put a positive spin on movements whose goal is to destroy Israel. When they say "resistance" what do they mean? Resistance to what? When they say they resist "occupation" what they really mean is the whole State of Israel. They openly say this. Thus "resistance" is simply a nice word for "destruction of Israel". Its as cynical as calling the Nazis or the KKK "resistance movements".

5. Israel has a peace partner with Abbas (Abu Mazen) and the PLO. Indeed, one could call Abbas more "moderate" in comparison to Hamas. Nonetheless, Abbas does not control half of the Palestinian people, in Gaza. Furthermore, by his own statements, the Palestinians will accept nothing less than withdrawal to 1967 borders and return of refugees. In other words, he demands the Israel knowningly commit national suicide, by withdrawing to indefensible borders with a hostile failed state and allowing a flood of Arab refugees into Israel.

6. Netanyahu, by his "extremist" policies, including his unwillingness to discuss a 2 state solution, is killing peace. This is really quite absurd. For the past 15 years since Oslo every Israeli leader, including Olmert, have publicly agreed to a 2 state solution, and made offers which were rejected. All of this discussion of 2 states had not brough peace any closer. So now, that Netanyahu doesn't what to discuss it-- suddenly he is to blame for lack of peace? This is really cynical and is dripping with hypocrisy.

7. "Solving" the Palestinian conflict will help "solve" the Iranian race for nuclear weapons. The linkage between these 2 issues could go in either direction-- the Palestinian problem makes tackling the Iranians difficult, or that Iranian support in the region for extremist rejectionist ("resistance") groups makes peace with the Palestinians more remote.
In reality, its hard to see how Iran's drive to regional hegemony has anything to do with the Palestinians. Secondly, even if the Palestinian-Israel conflict were resolved, how will that change Chinese and Russian support for Iran? How will it change Iranian ambitions? Sunni Arab countries are threatened by Iran for their own reasons, having nothing to do with helping America or with peace with Israel.
On the other hand, Iranian support for extremist groups have emboldened them and given them hope that one day soon, they will be able to throw the Jews into the sea (or back to Europe). So why should they compromise? Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, these groups will have nothing left to fear of Israel.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, it is obvious to anybody with eyes in his head that the Palestinians will have to rule themselves in the future, whether this means a state or some other kind of entity. But currently it is not Israel that is blocking this outcome, but Palestinian and Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist in this region. Even the Arab league so-called "Saudi initiative " peace plan calls for Israeli self-destruction. In other words-- the Arabs want peace, but without an Israel.

The Obama-Bibi Show

2009-05-19T13:34:00.003+03:00

Behind all of the talking heads, speculation, commentary and buzz surrounding the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama, the basic facts on the ground remain unchanged. Both Israel and the US know this, but cannot publicly declare that there is not a chance in hell that there will be a Palestinian-Israeli agreement in the forseeable future. So they dance around each other, making public statements in support of peace and negotiation. The Europeans, Americans and Arabs need to maintain the illusion of "progress" towards peace.

So the meetings and declarations are just a big orchestrated farce.

Obama will pretend to be pressuring Israel into a 2 state solution, even though he knows that this is impossible given the Palestinian divide. He cannot make Israel commit national suicide by forcing us into making a deal with Abbas. Bibi will continue to evade saying the magic word "state", knowing full well that ultimately the end game is indeed a Palestinian state, but not in the near future, so why provoke his domestic right wing opponents? As Ehud Barak correctly point out, after all, Israel has been talking about 2 states for the past 15 years since Oslo, and the Palestinians have not exactly fallen into our embrace. This is the precise point that Leiberman has been making all along.

There will be "virtual" pressure on Israel to make gestures-- taking down a few checkpoints or makeshift illegal buildings in the territories, but it will lead nowhere.

So really the argument between Bibi and Obama, and with Bibi's erstwhile colleagues in Kadima, is, how best to handle the PR. Do we say "two states", in order to appease the world, or avoid saying it, in order to not raise unrealistic expectations?

Unfortunately, American efforts to "reshape" the Middle East, as in the past, are doomed to failure.

Ha'aretz's false reporting and lies

2009-04-19T22:11:00.005+03:00

In reference to the following story in Haaretz by Akiva Eldar,

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079213.html

I wrote the following to the editor:

Dear Sirs:

This story seems to represent the opinions and wishes of Mr. Eldar, rather than a factual news item. In this article, Mr Eldar states:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a condition for renewing peace talks is unacceptable to the United States, the State Department said ..."

A survey of other domestic and foreign news sources (via Google News) failed to reveal any other article referencing an explicit American reaction to Netanyahu's demand, let alone a rejection. I wonder where Mr Eldar's sources are, if they exist.

Eldar uses his interpretation of the American position (which admittedly is firmly in favor of a 2 state solution) and presents it as a news item. Evidently the idea that Israel is be recognized as a Jewish state is objectionable to Eldar. By presenting the most reasonable and basic of demands as "unacceptable" by the US, and therefore blocking any possible negotiation, Eldar wishes to portray Israel's current government in the most negative possible light. Yet the Palestinians' underlying and persistent rejection of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state (to which they openly admit), with its accompanying demand for the return of refugees, is what is blocking peace, not Israel's demands.

This is unfortunately Haaretz's pattern of tendentious and dishonest reporting. It would be appropriate for an essay such as this to be in the "opinion" or "wishful thinking" section, rather than appearing as a news headline.

Jeffrey Shames
Rehovot

Note: as usual, Haaretz did not bother responding. They habitually do not respond to errors or corrections. There have been many other stories by Akiva Eldar of a similar nature-- taking partial facts out of context, manipulating them according to his agenda, then presenting it as "news".

What a truly shitty newpaper.

Should Israel Bomb Iran's Nuclear facilities?

2009-04-16T08:55:00.002+03:00

I will begin with the answer: No.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are worrying, and represent a negative development in the region. Iran is ruled by extremist ideology, with an explicit goal to eliminate the Jewish State. They oppose reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. They have demonstrated their ability to fight Israel via their proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah. Some past statements made by various Iranian politicians have raised the issue of a nuclear attack on Israel.

Proponents of an Israeli attack on Iran point to the successes of its operations in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2008.

Nonetheless, it would be against Israel's interest to attack Iran for several reasons:

1. Diplomatic: The Iranian nuclear issue is in the international limelight, and efforts to deal with the issue are being lead by the US. Any Israeli attack conducted without coordination with the US would sabotage these efforts and lead to a severe strain in relations with the US and European allies. Israel would pay a high price in terms of support from the US vis a vis its policy in this region.

2. Tactical: The world has changed. Iran is not Iraq or Syria. It has a large sophisticated army with significant capabilities, and most importantly, has Russian backing. The world is no longer unipolar, and the US does not have military or diplomatic hegemony. The regional balance of power has changed, not in our favor. Therefore the effectiveness of a potential military attack on Iranian facilities would be limited in scope and in time. The Iranians would be able to rebuild quickly, with the help of the Russians, unlike the Iraqis who needed the French. The Iranians would most definitely be able to retaliate, either directly or through their proxies. Israel has vulnerable strategic sites throughout Israel that could easily be hit in such an exchange, causing extensive damage and casualties.

3. Strategic: I don't think that it is possible to stop a determined state from acquiring nuclear capabilities. Iran, unlike Iraq, Syria or Libya, has rich natural resources to support its development efforts and its ability to sustain economic and diplomatic pressure. Therefore, Israel has no choice but to rely on deterrence and defense systems to maintain a balance of power against Iran. Furthermore, as Robert Gates pointed out, and I think that it is correct, that an Israeli attack would galvanize the Iranians behind their nationalist leaders and lead to bottomless hatred, and a determination to exact revenge which would be legitimate in their eyes. They would undoubtedly be able to carry our revenge attacks on Israel or Israeli/Jewish interests abroad. Right now the Iranians are limited in their ability and desire to hurt Israel, because of the middle eastern political situation vis a vis the Palestinians and other Arab countries. But in the event of an attack, they would have every excuse to use their full abilities.

Therefore, in my view, an Israeli attack would be a mistake.

I might be wrong. Perhaps if Israel does not act, history will not forgive us. But our allies and the region definitely will never forgive us if we start a regional war which we won't be able to end.

What (and who) is a self-hating Jew?

2009-04-14T08:16:00.007+03:00

My previous post regarding Gideon Levy's essays in Haaretz raises the question of accusing somebody of being a "self-hating Jew". This post is a minor revision of a letter that I actually sent to Mr. Levy and to the editorial desk of Haaretz (I received no acknowledgment). Since I am not so sure about the definition, and because bloggers are not immune to charges of libel, I did not use this term to describe Mr. Levy himself, but only to characterize his writing.

But the question is an interesting one. What is a self-hating Jew?

Jewish history is replete with Jews who renounced or denounced their Judaism and then became its harshist critics. But the phenomenon did not become become widespread until the 18th and 19th centuries following the emancipation. Up until that time, the Jew in Christian Europe lived in a traditional community, surrounding by hostile populations or governments who kept the Jews in their place. Upward mobility was not an option. Jews in Muslim lands fared somewhat better, but were still relegated to 2nd class citizen status. Following the emancipation, when European Jews where given citizens rights in various countries, the doors opened up for Jews who wished to progress socially and economically. Jews began to assimilate, and various liberal reinterpretations of Judaism appeared, which incorporated the new knowledge acquired by science, and accomodated the desire for many Jews to not appear different from their Gentile neighbors. These Jews preferred to disassociate themselves from the image of the Eastern European "shtetel Jew", with his traditional garb, mannerisms and langauge.

This assimilation, however, did not solve the "Jewish problem"--the dilemma of trying maintain the Jewish people's identity, while avoiding the disabilities of discrimination and anti-semitism. There were still formal and informal strictures which interfered with upward mobility for the Jew. There was still cultural anti-semitism. So many Jews simply renounced their Jewish faith by being baptized. They adopted Christianity in its cultural sense, but not necessarily its faith. This opened the doors further, allowing the likes of Heines, Mendelssohn, Marx to become accepted and famous. Often, the route that they chose included denouncing the Jewish faith, culture and its people, in the most vile and stereotyped manner. Others, however, remained "philesemitic" such as Disraeli. The advent of Zionism brought the identity of Judaism into sharper relief, with lines drawn between Jews for or against the zionist enterprise.

So classically, the "self-hating Jew" was somebody who severely criticized his people by attacking "core" characteristics of Jews and Judaism, often adopting the narratives of the Gentile anti-semite. In the 1930s and 40s Lessing and Lewin were the first to attempt to understand the phenomenon. In essence, the term is perjorative and used by others to describe and discredit the critic. Whether the self-hating Jew actually hates himself or his Judaism is unclear. The assumption is that because the Jew is uncomfortable or ashamed with being a member of a disliked minority, he responds by internalizing the ideas of the critics of Jews and attempts to disassociate himself with the disliked group. Furthermore, it is assumed that because of some deep dark internal conflict, the self-hating Jew turns against his core identity. More recently Finlay has proposed that the term is used by opponents to "pathologize" dissent. In this case, the accuser of self-hatred has defined some "core values" which in his view catergorizes Jew from non-Jew. Thus, when somebody opposes one of these core values, such as support for Israel's policies or some other public issue, he is considered to be "self-hating". The problem, of course, lies in what these core values are, given that there is considerable debate among various factions of Jews-- liberal or conservative, religious or secular, zionist or non-zionist. So how can I avoid labeling anybody who disagrees with something dear to me as "self-hating"? Interestingly, Finlay points out that although there are vigorous debates in the Christian world about theology and dogma, nobody calls someone a "self-hating Christian". The desenter might be called an apostate or heretic, but not self-hating. So why do we characterize such Jews as self-hating?

I think that the term self-hating is intertwined with the unique nature of the term "anti-semitism". We don't really have a similar term for other religions-- we don't speak of an "anti-Christian" or "anti-Muslim" in the same sense. We might call them bigots or racists. However, anti-semitism is unique in that it implies certain characteristics present in the anti-semite himself-- irrational hatred, advocacy of violence, envy, and perhaps psychopathology. Anti-semitism is also uniquely illegitimate in the civilized world. A garden variety bigot is not pathologized in the same way. Because of the magnitude of Jews' suffering at the hands of anti-semites, any form of bigotry against Jews or Judaism is demonized and the focus of particularly sharp condemnation. Jews are particularly sensitive to anti-semitism, perhaps more so that any other group is sensitive to bigotry against it.

So self-hating is essentially seen as home grown anti-semitism. Therefore, Dershowitz's famous 3 D's can be applied-- demonization, double standard, deligitimization-- to detect "self-hating Jews", just as they are used to detect anti-semitism.

So each reader can judge for himself if Gideon Levy is a self-hating Jew.

Haaretz does it again

2009-04-12T17:58:00.007+03:00

Once again, Haaretz, in this article
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077908.html
gives a voice to the sarcastic, whiny and self-loathing essays by Mr. Gideon Levy. One wonders why he chooses to live in a country which he considers to be so brutual, corrupt, and dark. Its hard to imagine what justification he sees in a Jewish State. Jewish self-loathing is unfortunately not rare, and Mr. Levy can compete easily in this realm with the likes of Karl Marx, H. Heine, and Avraham Burg. Its roots are usually in low self-esteem and a desire for acceptance, Every country has its self-respecting traditions that reinforce its identity, history, and culture, but Levy seems to want some generic rootless state, perhaps in Scandanavia. The Palestinians who Mr. Levy adores certainly would not have a more secular state than Israel. So what does he want with us?

If such an essay were to appear in an American paper from a non-Jewish author, it would be considered anti-semitic. I fail to understand why Haaretz includes Mr. Levy's essays in their paper. In the name of freedom of the press? Haaretz would serve themselves (and Israel) better by finding columnists who can write essays that contribute constructively to the debates in Israeli society. Mr. Levy writes more like a resentful and bitter "talkbackist" than a trained and principled editorialist. Including his writings in this newspaper speaks mountains about Haaretz's anti-zionism and anti-semitism.

A HAPPY PESACH TO ALL MY READERS

2009-04-08T16:42:00.000+03:00

Arab "Resistance" (Moqawama)

2009-04-08T15:31:00.008+03:00

I believe that the Palestinian conflict will eventually be resolved by a 2 state solution. There are no other logical or practical possibilities. The Palestinians, Arabs or Iranians will not "destroy" Israel (modern countries can't been "destroyed" by another state). Israel will not make the Palestinians go someplace else, nor will they kill them all. I think that Bibi knows this and has chosen not to speak of it due to present political circumstances. But the "road map", which Israel adopted and even Lieberman acknowledged, envisions a Palestinian state. There may be more wars on the way, with lots of suffering on both sides, but eventually the sides will adopt this solution.

The problem at the present is that the Palestinians do not actually appear to want a state. Think about it. When the Jews were offered a state, they accepted what they were offered in 1947. The Palestinians have had 5 opportunities for a state. 1. with the UN partition. 2. in the period of 1948-1967 when Arab countries occupied their areas. 3. With the culmination of Oslo, when Barak offered them a state in 2000 covering 90%+ of the territory they demanded. 4. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, they could have build a mini-state there. 5. When Olmert (evidently) offered Abba a state covering 97% of the territories.

What did they do with these opportunities? They did not build up national and cultural institutions or infrastructure. They did not sieze these opportunities, when they could have had a state on a silver platter, with the blessings of the entire Western world. Instead, they continue to fight for their "rights"-- the rights to all of Palestine, the rights to the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa, the right for a few million "refugees" to return to their original towns and homes in modern day Israel. Now, of course, Israel would not voluntarily agree to self-destruct. Nor can the Palestinians or other Arabs overrun Israel, kick all of the Jews out, and bring all of the Palestinians back. So, unable to compromise and unwilling to accept a partial fulfillment of their dreams, the opted to this day for "Moqawama"-- the arabic word for resistance.

Resistance, in the Muslim context, refers to any act against those who are engaged in the perceived violation of "rights" or against injustice. Any action is legitimate, no matter how violent. More importantly, the resistance doesn't have to be effective, either. It is resistance for the sake of resistance. Now, I'm sure the Muslim themselves view this idea as a moral and lofty goal. The problem is that as long as the Palestinians and their leadership are stuck in their wallowing over how they have been wronged, without being able to get past all of their resentment and anger, they cannot arrive at a practical compromise. So they hold out for all-out "victory", even if it never comes, even if it costs them their lives, their economy, their social fabric and well being. Resistance has become a standard part of the Muslim language, to justify all kinds of things. The Lebanon War was an act of resistance? For what goal? So the Gazans fire rockets at Sderot's civilians. For what goal? What has it brought them?

It is though they are perpetually and tragically stuck, in a state of mourning over their perceived losses and injustices, and they are unable to move on. In insisting on a "just" solution, they eliminate the possibility of realistic compromise. Most Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the dismantlement of Israel. Certain other Muslim groups, like the Iranians, use the Palestinians for their own regional aspirations, by keeping their false hopes alive, making compromise even more remote.

Why Avigdor Lieberman is a good foreign minister for Israel

2009-04-01T19:00:00.005+03:00

The Israeli left and the Arabs are already screaming hysterically like hyenas about the new right wing government in Israel, and against its foriegn minister, Avigdor Lieberman. He is a racist, the say, and against peace.

Yes, he is against "peace" if it means creating a state that threatens Israel's security. Yes, he is against "peace", when it means only Israeli concessions in exchange for more Palestinian demands, incitement, and threats. Yes, he is against peace if it means handing over land encroaching Israel's heartland, to an impotent, violent and divided Palestinian society. When the Palestinians call for Israel to accept "peace", what they actually mean is surrender and self-destruction.

Is he is really a racist? When an Arab member of Knesset openly identifies with Israel's enemies and supports their armed struggle against Israel, is it racist to demand that he be kicked out of Knesset and stripped of his citizenship? What about when an MP, such as Azmi Bashara, spies on behalf of an enemy terrorist army? Should he be entitled to a pension from the State of Israel? Is that insane?

I think that its good that we finally have a FM that doesn't speak mealy mouthed about a peace that in reality is unattainable at this time. Israeli has shown that it is willing to compromise, but unilateral moves on its part are only recipricated with scorn, contempt, and demands for more concessions. I also think that the world, including the US, will get used to a different but clear message-- that we want peace, but will not compromise our security, period. Lieberman is correct in his assertion that the blind pursuit of an elusive peace only invites war; and that preparing for war by showing strength (politically and militarily) brings peace closer.

All other fake calls for "painful concessions" only make peace less likely.

Reframing the Israeli- Arab conflict

2009-02-02T12:27:00.004+02:00

When I read the news of the events in our region, I note that it is very easy to get carried away in the existential meaning of every occurrence. Every battle, attack, or diplomatic episode is seen as fateful, a victory or a loss, and in some way tipping the balance in favor of a resolution in some direction. At a psychological level, we all experience a gap between reality and what we wish would be. So we look for signs of that gap narrowing or widening, which in turn affects our anxieties. Yet we know that this conflict has been going on for almost 100 years, and it may go on for 100 more. Although this may be a painful reality, it is reality nonetheless. So not every blip on the screen has that much meaning in the scheme of things.

It is interesting to think about how insignificant this conflict would seem to the rest of the world, had it not been involving Jew and Arab. Arab- because he has oil. Without oil, the west wouldn't give a shit about what goes on here, and the Arabs would have zero influence. The Jew- because he is a Jew. The story of the Jewish people, from the Bible through the holocaust and creation of Israel, fascinates the Christian gentile world. The Bible is their narrative, too. They are intertwined with it, for good and bad. Note that for the Far East, Israel carries much less interest. The Jews are not part of their story, so they don't really care one way or another.

So every little event here is seen in cataclysmic terms.

But really, the earth couldn't care less. And evidently neither does god, who is claimed by both sides as their guide and inspiration.

The Moral Cowardice of Spain and Hypocrisy of Turkey

2009-01-30T12:34:00.005+02:00

Evidently, guilt feelings of the Spanish over their own past has caused them to join the chorus of Israel and Jew-bashing.

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Spanish had troops who were fighting alongside the Americans, as part of the international war on terror. Then there was a big terrorist attack in Spain, after Al Qaida demanded that Spain withdraw their troops from Iraq. The Spanish quickly complied. Since then, Spain has been towing an anti-American and anti-Israeli line. Recently, some provinces cancelled holocaust memorial services because of Israeli "Nazi" crimes. Yesterday they notified us that some of Israel's military and senior political officials will be tried for "crimes against humanity".

There is no doubt that endemic anti-semitism, along with Spain's Muslim population, is responsible for these outrageous allegations. Spain is being sucked into Europe's left wing "multiculturalism", a catch phrase for surrender to the Muslim's increasing demand for special privileges and "sensitivity" to their religion. Holland seems to have past the point of no return, as it recently announced the prosecution of the MP who produced the film "Fitna".

It is only a matter of time before many European countries wake up one morning and discover that they no longer have a liberal western Christian democracy, but a Muslim theocracy instead.

Turkey seems to be gradually going the way of Iran. Its not going radical in one revolutionary step like Iran did. Rather, through democratic means, it is slowly adopting the values and narrative of the angry bitter Muslim world who all share feelings of inferiority to the West. Erdogan's recent anti-Israel rhetoric showed great similarity to that of Ahmedinejad. He demonizes Israeli actions and deligitimizes Israel's self defence, and justifies his accusations by invoking Turkey's "honor". At the same time Turkey fights it own anti-terrorist war against the Kurds with an iron fist no less firm than Israel's. Yet the Europeans want Turkey in the EU, and have conditioned acceptance on "reforms" in Turkey which would weaken the army's secular hold on the country.

Why Debkafile is Stupid

2009-01-25T15:14:00.006+02:00

As many people probably know, Debkafile is a news and commentary website with an emphasis on "scoops" on security and terrorism issues.

It bears a neo-conservative approach with a tendency towards conspiracy theories.

I occasionally read it for entertainment value, although unaware surfers might become alarmed at their frequent dire warnings of impending disasters.

Some of you may be familiar with the documentary hypothesis for higher Biblical criticism. This utilizes the idea that sources from multiple authors were weaved together to produce the final version of the Bible that we have today. This theory solves the problems of multiple inconsistencies, anachronisms and contradictions that appear throughout the text.

I believe that the same methodology can be applied to Debkafiles "news" items. Although sources are never quoted and the articles' writers are never revealed , it seems that there are at least 3 different writers who produce this nonsense.

1. E-- the "editorialist"-- periodically a "report" will appear that is essentially a far right wing conspiratorial opinion piece, weaving together mostly known facts with a small dose of conjecture, to produce a story that paints a picture of complete failure, doom and gloom, and impending disaster. Israel's leaders are consistently shown to be incompetent, ignorant, malevolent, or all of the above. Israel leaders are also generally assumed to be deceiving the Israeli public about the enemy's endless capabilities. The enemy's leaders are portrayed as cunning, all-knowing, frighteningly powerful and competent. All events are shown to neatly fall into the scheme that the enemy has designed. So every new item, even just a comment, however seemingly minor, are seen as cataclysmic and fateful, somehow having a lasting and dramatic effect on the turn of events. Any tactical setback on Israel's part is presented as proof of our incompetence and impending defeat. Any tactical "success" of the enemy is greatly exagerrated by E to prove that the enemy is ever closer to its inevitable goal of defeating Israel. For Debka, usually the "end game" that moves closer with each fateful turn of events is total warfare.

2. S-- the "scooper"-- S scours the internet and other anonymous sources for tidbits of information. Some of these "scoops" prove to be correct and appear in the mainstream press shortly after appearing on Debka. Some appear to be total fantasy, like the impending terrorist attack in NYC which put the authorities on high alert in 2007. S often interprets these scoops, like his colleague "E" with a conspiratorial slant, weaving together seemingly unrelated or routine news items into a big story. S's favorite item is movements of warships, which are frequently used to indicated impending war. Another favorite is ominously reporting on some event that occurred "the very first time", showing us that we are ever closer to the inevitable Armageddon.

I think S could be divided into S1 and S2. S1 gets these scoops from lesser known but legitimate news sources, such as military publications, foreign media, etc. S2 get his information from whacky internet blabber or from some unnamed blabbing "official" who may or may not know whats going on. An example of this would be a so called detailed account of a secret conversation between an Iranian and a Syrian official.

Generally, I agree with many bloggers' assessments that Debkafile makes us dumber, not smarter. You can't really learn anything new from them, its mostly conspiracy theory.

Let me know what you think.

Israel vs. Hamas: Who Won?

2009-01-19T08:01:00.007+02:00

Much has been said and written about Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). This refers to asymmetric armed conflict between state and non state actors.

In earlier "conventional" wars between armies, the outcome of combat was determined by surrender, occupation of enemy territory, cease-fires and end of conflict treaties. There were also clear distinctions between civilians and combatants. The Geneva Conventions, which defined international laws of war, were written in the context of this form of warfare. The major Western powers and Russia are the undisputed rulers in the world of conventional wars.

From the Vietnam War and onwards, this type of warfare has evolved into something new, 4GW. This term was coined by William Lind in 1989. Battles and victory are no longer defined by casualties, territory, or sovereignty. There are no clear lines between war and peace, or between civilians and combatants. Rather, we have an ongoing "struggle" or "resistance", whose mere existence is seen by its supporters as victory. Winning is defined in terms of perception, psychology, and on "moral" or ideological grounds. Civilians on both sides are considered by the non-state actor to be "soldiers": On their own side, to be sacrificed for political gains, and on their enemy's side, as legitimate targets whose strategic value is to demoralize the enemy.

In 4GW, the non state actor's strategy and goal is to demoralize and sap the resolve of the state, so that it gives up on the struggle as being "unwinable" or too costly. It does not aim to actually defeat the army of the state in the conventional sense.

In the case of Israel, the Hamas-Iran-Hizbullah axis seeks to continually erode Israel's self confidence, support abroad, and unity of its own people. This presumably would lead to further weakening of Israel's resolve to pursue its national interests. In the end game, Hamas sees that Israel will dissolve from within, through emigration, and social and economic collapse, thus forcing it to evolve into a bi-national Palestinian State, with the Palestinians rapidly overwhelming the Jews. Their model for this "internal rot" is the USSR and Apartheid South Africa (although they did not disappear because of guerilla warfare).

It is clear that in 4GW, from the terrorist non-state actors point of view, short of total annihilation, they can never "lose". If they exist, they win. They live on to hope and continue to struggle.

Their problem is that not all Palestinians share Hamas' point of view in this regard. Hamas' political leaders can continue to celebrate "victory" from within their holes in the ground, but what is the average Israeli or Palestinian to think?

I think that a very simple test is to ask the following question: Of you were an alien landing on earth and had to choose whether to be a Palestinian or an Israeli, what would you choose? A Palestinian, whose land was just ravaged by a foreign army killing thousands of people, while the "fighters" hid underground, to occasionally surface to fire off an ineffective rocket and then go into hiding again? Whose economy is essentially non-existent while the rulers of the land are considers pariahs by most of the world? Whose "fighters" failed to defend its civilians? Or an Israeli, whose economy is modern and thriving, who suffers occasional light civilian casualties from terrorism, and whose army is among the best in the world?

To me the answer is pretty clear. I know that many Palestinians and Hamas supporters do not think like that, but there is nothing we can do about that. Furthermore I think that the difference in perception about this war, incomparison to the Lebanon War, is gaping.

Therefore, any claims of "victory" by Hamas leaders in hiding will sound hollow to most Palestinians. Israelis, on the other hand, love to debate and argue, and particularly like to blame themselves for things not being perfect. Nonetheless, Israel has gained the upper hand for the time being. What the future will bring, only God knows.

The Sound of Silence

2008-12-01T09:08:00.004+02:00

It is deafening.

The silence in the Mumbai Chabad house in the aftermath of the slaughter there. Here, a young couple, on a mission of selfless service, two pure souls, are murdured together with their guests. An existential encounter between the most evil in Islam and the purist and noblest of Judaism.

The silence after the cries of the orphaned toddler calling for his mother, who cannot answer.

The breathtaking silence of the Muslim world. Where is the call among the "moderate" Arab and Muslim countries and leaders, to expunge this evil in their midst? Imagine if a Jew or Israeli was involved in such a massacre against Muslims. The Jewish leadership, the Israeli politicians, would be apologizing to the Muslim world. We would be calling for soul searching, for disavowing these people who don't represent us, who distort Judaism. How could we have let them take root among us? The Muslim world, especially Pakistan, owes the world, and particularly the Jewish people, an apology. But they are silent. They pretend to support the fight against the terrorists, and the need to address the root causes, the grievances of the terrorists, as though such grievances could explain the inhuman behavior of the attackers at the Chabad house.

Ask the lawyers

2008-11-10T07:52:00.005+02:00

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has released another one of his old and used trial balloons in response to the renewed rocket fire from Gaza. "Let's fire back!", he says. Neither the resumption of fire nor Barak's response is a big surprise. The novelty this time is that he openly says that we need to check with AG Mazuz to assess the legality of our response. If this is the mentality in our government, it is not too out of the question to imagine the following news item:

Tel Aviv (AP). Israel's coastal cities continued to be pounded for the 15th straight day by Iranian Shihab 3 missiles, inflicting casualties and causing massive damage to the country's infrastructure and economy. Civilian life has come to a virtual standstill, as nearly two-thirds of the Israel's population is prevented from going to work or school, and instead cowering in bomb shelters. Israel's government has yet to order its vaunted military to respond, despite the protracted assualt on its civilian population. Currently, the defense minister, prime minister, and attorney general are engaged in protracted and inconclusive negotiations over the legality of firing missiles back at Iran or bombing infrastructure targets, since these are likely to lead to large civilian casualties. "I am looking into the issue, its not so simple as you people think", Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying. Attorney general Mani Mazuz has expressed concern that an Israeli decision to respond is likely to be criticized or stopped altogether by Israel High Court of Justice. This fear is not unfounded, as the high court is currently reviewing a request by a group, Concerned Citizens for Iran, to order the government not to fire missiles at Iran. Furthermore, the AG fears that any Israeli leader who orders such a response will be considered a war criminal under internation law, and would be subject to arrest upon landing in Britain or Belgium. Mazuz is not expected to issue an opinion for at least 2 months, pending an extensive legal review and consultation with Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. In the meantime, Barak is engaged in expedited negotiations with the treasury and contracting companies, in a bid the reinforce existing buildings in the Tel Aviv areas and thus help them withstand a sustained bombing attack. "We advise the citizens to have patience, we're working on the problem, and I promise you, there will definitely be a solution by next spring", said Barak.

This story is not too far from reality. It appears that Mr. Barak's statement is intended more for political purposes, in a transparent bid to appear tough and improve his Labor party's dismal standing in the public. Rest assured, nothing will come from his latest threats. The supposed power outages in Gaza are all very carefully choreographed by the Palestinians, and will surely pressure Israel into opening the passages to Gaza. Therefore, even the modest Israeli response of closing borders will be neutered of all effectiveness.

Power politics in Israel

2008-10-06T12:36:00.003+02:00

This Shabbat I read Caroline Glick's column in the Jerusalem Post about why all prime ministers, no matter on what platform they are elected, turn leftward after being in office.
After closesly following Israel's politics for 20 years, the following are my conclusions about Israeli democracy:

1. The real, stable, center of power in Israel lies within its judiciary (led by the High Court) and Israel's print and broadcast media. Both arms are dominated by the political left and supported by the industrial elites. They have the unchecked ability to prop up or bring down a politician.

2. That the industrial elites support the left leads to a paradox: that these industrialists are free market capitalists, and not socialist.

3. The coalition-parliamentary system here is inherently unstable. Since the elected officials, both in the government and knesset, change so frequently, and given the control exercised by the judiciary, the government's power is limited and operates within a fairly narrow range of options. This range is within the center-left. If it goes to the right. or too far left, it gets toppled either by a no-confidence vote or by investigations by the police and attorney general. Furthermore, since the cabinet positions are shuffled so frequently, no one person gets enough grasp of the subject of his ministry, and cannot accumulate the influence necessary for real change, before he is replaced.

4. The left believes that an unchecked elected government would become fascist and Taliban, and believe that their non-democratic oversight of the government couterbalances this tendency, and therefore try to maintain this system at all cost.

5. All of the above point to the conclusion that it does not matter a whole lot who is elected. The basic agenda will be dictated by media pressure, along with judicial oversight. Lacking a constitution, the High Court can essentially veto any government or knesset decision. The court intervenes at will and in strict accordance with its leftist agenda. Justice Minister Daniel Friedman's attempt to change this is being met with fierce resistance and is likely to fail. Furthermore, the AG has a "file" on essentially every politician that remains open but dormant for years, ready to be used at such time an official needs to be removed or pressured in a certain direction.

6. The Israeli media demonstrate breathtaking irresponsibility with their astoundingly poor editorial standards in comparison to western countries. They can propagate a "spin" on a certain issue utilizing distorted or blatantly false reporting, tabloid headlines, and superficial stories that contradict themselves one day to the next. They also willingly act as mouthpieces for the psychological warfare of our enemies. They report verbatim the latest Nasrallah or Ahmedinajad speech as a screaming headline, but say nothing about the American presidential candidates.

While the media is not government controlled, it has an overarching leftist bias which permeates all of its reporting, which relies on spin, "leaks" or comments from unidentified officials, and sensationalist headlines which blow issues totally out of proportion. There is little truly in depth investigative reporting and few in-depth stories which attempt to educate the public in a balanced way about important issues. They do all of this without any accountability whatsover. There are no corrections or apologies for errata, and certainly not for blatant falsehoods. The paper Ha'aretz is particularly guilty of this. Things that are done routinely by Ha'aretz reporters in Israel would get them fired if they worked for an American newspaper. They other major papers Maariv and Yediot are also guilty of this. In contrast I have found that The Jerusalem Post has a balanced presentation of stories. Unfortunately it is not widely read among the Israeli public, nor among foreign reporters, who prefer Ha'aretz as their source of "Israeli" news.

Addendum to the 8 point plan

2008-08-17T08:14:00.002+03:00

Currently, the Israeli government is deliberating two issues: Whether or not to release Palestinian prisoners as a unilateral "gesture" to the PA's Abu Mazen, and how to allocate budgetary cuts in the military and social spending programs.

With regard to the first issue, the Israeli government claims to want to "strengthen" Abu Mazen in the face of Hamas' power. The tactic of unilateral gestures has proven to be a miserable failure. I have previously written about this extensively. Abu Mazen is a barely breathing corpse, and releasing terrorists will do nothing to change this.

Another reason for the release, often mentioned, is to show the Palestinians that "dialogue" will bring about Israeli concessions, rather than the tactic of terrorism and kidnappings. This is completely fallacious and illogical. The Palestinians, and Arab adversaries in general, have long a ago concluded that they can achieve their goals by force. We ourselves have tought them that with our behaviour in the past 10 years. Releasing 150 terrorists from prison isn't going to reverse that perception; if anything it will strengthen it, because everybody with eyes in their heads will know that Israel is doing it in reaction to Hamas' demands for ransom.

As to Israel's military budget, this requires some basic common sense which our current leaders seem to lack. In the current environment Israel has no choice but to maintain a high expenditure on the military. I think a crash program needs to be implemented to develop and deploy an anti-rocket system as quickly as possible. This, however, is a late and avoidable need, that resulted from the deterioration in our deterrence. However, technology is not sufficient; our purchase of the latest planes and tanks doesn't scare Hamas or Hizbullah.

As I see it, our weak leaders are trying to throw money at the problem, but money is not the issue. In reality they are covering up their own failed decision making. Barak should be investing his energy in improving Israel's deterrence rather than making petty arguments about the importance of not cutting his budget. He uses cheap vailed threats of impending "security challenges" which is an old tired argument for a bloated budget that emphasizes officer's salaries and hi-tech wizardry rather than time-proven basic military doctrine. Furthermore, with the globalized markets and fattened cash reserves of the oil-producing states, in any arms race between Israel and the Arabs, Israel will lose. The US is a weakened ally and cannot be counted on to counter the mass influx of arms in the Middle East. So betting on the horse of the military budget is just an additional way to avoid making the really important decisions, and is doomed to failure.

Olmert is continuing his furious attempts at arriving at a "shelf agreement" with Abu Mazen. But our offers for massive concessions are just being met with derision and contempt by our supposed partners for peace. This period reminds me of a similar period in the last months of Barak's stewardship as Prime Minister, during which he shuttled back and forth to Camp David and Sharm el Sheikh in order to get Arafat to sign on the dotted line, all the while when the Palestinians were unleashing a viscious terrorist war against us. We all know how that ended.

Israel continues to make every possible mistake in navigating the treacherous waters of the Middle East and fundamentalist Islam.

Let's hope our leaders and people wake up before its too late.

I have decided: John McCain

2008-08-13T07:07:00.002+03:00

I am sure that I will draw the ire of my liberal friends and relatives. To be sure, Barak Obama is a respectable and worthy candidate. But recent events in Georgia only reinforce the idea that the Cold War has resumed. At the same time American power is on the decline.
My feeling is that only somebody with a strong and conservative moral compass will be able to face down the Russians and deal with the challenges that America faces in the coming decade. America stands to lose alot-- its status as a great superpower, its vital economic interests around the world, and its ability to support its free and democratic allies across the globe.

What we (Israel) should do

2008-08-11T20:32:00.005+03:00

People say to me, "ok, you can criticize our leaders and point out what we shouldn't be doing. What should we be doing?"

OK, here is my 8 point plan for restoring Israel's standing and deterrence in this region. One caveat- this is based on what information is available to me. I obviously cannot decide based on secret information unknown to me.

1. The Prime Minister needs to have an immediate face to face discussion with Mr Noam Shalit, Gilad Shalit's father. It should go something like this: "Noam, I know how hard this has been for you and how your family has been suffering because of your son's captivity. But as PM of this country our higher national interests are at stake. I need to be concerned about Israel's deterrence and standing in this region, for the sake of all Israelis, civilians and soldiers alike. Therefore, I have decided that we are cutting off all negotiations with the terrorist Hamas organization for the release of Palestinian prisoners. We will continue to unequivocally demand Gilad's release and back up these demand via diplomatic, economic and military pressure. But under no circumstances will we consider paying Hamas a "ransom" by releasing any more prisoners. "

2. After the above discussion, the following public message such be sent to Hamas: "I, as prime minister of the State of Israel, do not negotiate with terrorists. Therefore, I have ordered all of Israel's representatives involved in the dialogue for paying "ransom" for Gilad Shalit, to halt and desist, effective immediately, all negotiations with Hamas over the release of Palestinian prisoners. The only dialogue which we will have with you is regarding the venue of release of Gilad Shalit. In the absence of negotiations, the State of Israel unequivocally demands the unconditional release of Shalit. We furthermore demand, in accordance with international law, that Hamas allow Shalit to be visited by the Internation Red Cross.
"The State of Israel will support these demands by all means including unrelenting diplomatic, economic and military pressure until such time Shalit is released. The State of Israel holds the terrorist entity of Gaza responsible for Shalit's like and return to safety.
" At the same time. let me clearly state that at such time when a permanent cessation of hostilities occurs between Palestinians, including Hamas, and Israel, then as part of a natural process of reconciliation, a mutual release of prisoners would occur. As such time I would be prepared to release most, if not all, of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

3. The above steps will be accompanied by a major public relations campaign in the popular Israeli media, to be supported by all of Israel's ministers. This campaign will explain the dangers inherent in negotiating and submitting to terrorist demands, including an erosion in Israel's deterrence, the strengthening of extremist elements in Palestinian society, and of the risk of released terrorists return to hostile activity, lacking a comprehensive cessation of hostilities.

4. The Hamas rulers of Gaza will be notified the following: Effective immediately, any violation of the cease fire agreed to in June, including even a single rocket attack, will be met by an immediate and severe response. This will include, but not be limited to, an artillery or rocket attack against Gaza civilian infrastructure, including bridges, roads, public buildings, and utilities, and/or reclosing the Gaza borders for unspecified periods of time.

5. It goes without saying that the above threat will actually be carried out consistently and as often as necessary. No minor violations will be allowed, even if carried out by supposed "splinter" terrorist groups. We hold Hamas responsible for Gaza, period. We need to behave like the stronger party, and we have no reason to be "forgiving" to Palestinian violations.

6. The Israeli government will send the following message to Lebanon: We seek no confrontation with you, and we have no territorial ambitions. Shaba farms will be returned to you as part of a negotiatied peace agreement between our countries. At the same time, Hizbullah, which is part of your government, had committed gross violations of the ceasefire as agreed to in UN resolution 1701. This the the reason for our flights in Lebanese airspace, which are necessary for our national security, in the face of Hizbullah's military buildup.
Since Hizbullah is part of your government, and your cabinet has recently adopted Hizbullah's platform vis a vis Israel, we hereby state that the Government of Lebanon is responsible for any all all hostile military activity against Israel, whether by Hizbullah or any other military body. As such, any attack on Israeli military or civilian targets, wherever they may be, will be considered a hostile act by the sovereign government in Lebanon, and it shall bear the consequences. To be clear: in the event that Lebanon initiates any attack against Israel, such as a rocket or mortar attack, infiltration, or attempt a kidnapping of soldiers or civilians, Israel will react swiftly, immediately and severely against Lebanon's government and infrastructure, including buildings, airports, and utilities.

7. It is important to realize that there are many regional and world trends that are beyond our control (such as the resumption of the cold war with Russia, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism). As such it is important that we not overextend our reach. In the present global environment of easy transfer of information, people and equipment, including abundant Russian and Chinese weapons, it is almost impossible to stop the armament of our adversaries. It is important in this environment to restore deterrence as a defensive measure.

8. Given #7 I believe that Israel should abandon the open effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe that Israel can do very little to prevent this, and any military operation will have severe costs, and not prevent future rearmament. Furthermore, our failure will have further severe consequences on deterrence. In addition, if Iran really wants to quickly acquire such weapons, they can simply smuggle them in from one of the rogue nuclear states, such as Pakistan or North Korea, or perhaps Russia. The overall effort to prevent the nuclearization of Iran should be left to the US, as part of a wider regional confrontation in the context of the Cold War. We should stay out of this conflict and watch from the sidelines, while supporting US efforts and not complicating them. As part of our deterrent against Iran we should clearly state that in the event of any Iranian attack on Israel, Tehran will be destroyed by our missiles, against which they are currently undefended.

9. I think that the American government and people will support these policies.

In particular I believe that steps 1 through 5 will have an immediate positive effect on Israel's position, and will completely neutralize Hamas' gain from the kidnapping of Shalit. Steps 6-8 will have an effect over the long term.

Who says Israelis are so smart? What we have tought the Arabs

2008-08-11T14:06:00.006+03:00

In this article Defense Minister Ehud Barak outlines his perception of Israel's strategic position and plans for the future.

Pundits say he is a genius, but he presents an amazingly incoherent picture that is quite depressing. He blames Ariel Sharon for allowing Hizbullah to strengthen, and PM Olmert for going to war unprepared and strengthening Hizbullah even more. At the same time , after many months of sabre rattling about an impending operation in Gaza, Barak now says that an Israeli invasion of Gaza wouldn't attain anything and its better to maintain a cease fire, notwithstanding Hamas' preparations for war.

With breathtaking arrogance, he claims credit for the "6 years of quiet" in the north which he achieved by the unilateral withdrawal from Lebonon (the same 6 years which he blames on governments after his, for ignoring the security threat from Hizbullah!) . I wonder who he can blame for the strenghthening of Hamas, right under his nose. Who will he blame when thousands of rockets rain down on all of southern Israel every day?

Barak's solution? A national unity government under him. To do what? "maintain" the calm with Hamas? Withdraw from Shaba unilaterally? What does he plan? According the Barak, Tzipi Livni isn't good enough because of her lack of security experience. But what about the disasters that he and Ariel Sharon wrought?

I think that Barak's description reflects a basically flawed and defeatist attitude that has dominated Israel's leadership since Oslo. We have come to behave like losers, projecting weakness at every turn. Maybe we are really weak but nobody wants to say it out loud.

When we look at Israel's behavior in the years since Oslo (1994), I am tempted to ask:
What have we tought our Arab adversaries? Here's my list ("you" refers to Arabs):

1. When you make an agreement, make Israel pay a price up front, before knowing what Israel gets. (Oslo agreement, recent prisoner exchange)

2. Don't worry about the agreement, if you violate it, Israel won't do anything.(Oslo implementation, 1701, etc)

3. Don't bother asking for imprisoned terrorists to be released. Israel won't do it unless you kidnap an Israeli, and return him dead or alive. (every trade we made)

4. Good cop/bad cop works with Israelis. Pretend you are "weak" and need to be "strenghthened" in order to exact concessions. (arafat, Abu Mazen)

5. Israel will sacrifice its supreme national interests in order to placate a noisy parent (in the case of captives) or to relieve pressure from the left and the media. ("cease fire" with Hamas) You can count on the Israeli left to do what you can't do militarily.

6. With the exception of operation Defensive Shield, every armed conflict that Israel has engaged in, in the past 12 years, has resulted in no acheivements for Israel and strengthened her enemies. Israel has failed to defeat Hamas and Hizbullah.

7. Terrorism works. Particularly suicide bombing and kidnappings. Israel is unwilling and unable to sustain losses, and if you keep it up, Israel will cave in. (Disengagement, Lebanon wars, Hamas "calm").

8. The Israeli army's primary goal is to protect soldiers lives, even at the cost of civilian lives. If you kill even a small number of soldiers, Israel will cave in. At the same time, they fear losing soldiers in a military operation, so if you can threaten them enough to cause fear of losses, they will be deterred. (Lebanon 1 and 2, Gaza)

Now, if you were a Palestinian, what would you think about Israel? Israel appears to be on the wane, militarily, diplomatically and politically. Israel is weak. That is why I am not suprised to hear even our Fatah "diplomatic partners" to say openly that they now seek a one state solution, not 2. Two states was a Palestinian concession, but now that Israel is weak, why not go for the gold?

We complain that the Palestinians don't learn their lessons, but the problem in my mind is that they are learning them all too well.

A letter to Ha'aretz

2008-07-23T18:21:00.001+03:00

Dear Mr. Harel/Ravid,

Re: Ha'aretz story: "Ministers: Israel needs to be more flexible with Hamas over Shalit talks "

As a responsible Israeli citizen who cares for his country, I am writing to protest the publication of this story in Ha'aretz.

With regards to the article, the story gives the basic impression that the consensus within the political and security establishment in Israel is that Israel needs to "give in" to Hamas' demands by releasing more convicted Palestinian terrorists. You know as well as I that the issue of the "price" to be paid to kidnappers, as well as the very act of negotiating itself, is the subject of considerable controversy. It is hotly debated by the public and by security experts. Yet your story, without mentioning who the "sources" are, concludes that there is no debate and that all have agreed that Israel needs to make more concessions. This is factually incorrect, and misleads the public in Israel and English speaking readers abroad. It is also a transparent attempt to "create" the news by creating the impression that the concessions are a done deal.

The extreme left bias of your paper is well known, and with a free press you have the right to write whatever you want. A free and vigorous press is important in a democracy. But responsible journalism requires a separation between editorializing and reporting the news. It would be completely appropriate for your paper to write an editorial column advocating this or that concession to Hamas. But including a leading news story that is so obviously slanted and tendentious is unethical and poor journalism. Furthermore, by doing so your paper acts as a mouthpiece for the enemy to further demoralize the Israeli public and prepare them for the "inevitable" concession. It also harms international efforts to delegitimize and fight terrorist groups.

As to the issue itself: Why is it that that only Israeli ministers "have no illusions of reaching an agreement" unless certain conditions are met? Why is it not the Palestinian terrorist group, that shouldn't "have any illusions" about extorting outrageous concessions from Israel? The negotiating environment is created using psychological pressure, and your paper is being recruited by Hamas to further their cause. How can you allow your paper to do this? I can already predict the numerous articles by supposed "experts" who will appear in your paper in the coming months, explaining why we should release Marwan Barghouti, that he is the Palestinian's natural leader, that he will moderate their positions, that he is just a national hero and not really a murderer, etc. Why does your paper behave in a way that is so damaging to Israel?? Often, when hearing anti-Israel rhetoric from abroad, I encounter the claim that "even Israelis feel this way" based on stories from Haaretz.

The results of this week's shameful exchange with Hizbullah are already apparent: hardening of Hamas' position vis a vis Shalit, threats from Hizbullah and other groups of more kidnappings, scorn on the Arab street, and consolidation of Nasrallah's power in Lebanon.

As to the supposed inviolate ethic in the IDF of "bringing the sons home", applying it to a a deal with terrorists is immoral, against all norms of criminal and international law, and completely contrary to Israel's supreme national interests. This ethic is properly applied to situations where the army itself has to act in order to retrieve the wounded or dead soldiers in the field, or to liberate prisoners. But it is still the army's job to defend the civilians, not the reverse. The idea that an entire country (and its national interests) can be held hostage because a soldier (dead or alive) is in enemy hands is an outrageous distortion of morality and national ideals. Suppose Hizbullah holds an Israeli civilian hostage, say an old lady. Is she worth any less? Or suppose a soldier is being held, and the "inevitable" price being demanded by Hizbullah is withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Would your paper be advocating giving in to such a demand? Would you argue that we should "have no illusions" about the price to be paid? I cannot imagine any other western country behaving in such a fashion. Would the US or Great Britain negotiate the release of convicted Al Qaida criminals? I'll bet they wouldn’t. The fact that we do makes us less moral, not more moral, contrary to PM Olmert's claims. 30 years ago no Israeli would even consider negotiating with a terrorist. The international community respected us for this. The only negotiating was: either surrender or die. Somehow Israel's will to fight has weakened in recent years, and Ha'aretz has taken an active role in the erosion of Israel's national ethic. Recent events have proven, all too clearly, that appeasement only encourages the enemy to demand more and raises his will to fight.

If the two of you care about Israel you should immediately demand a change in Ha'aretz journalistic standards or resign.

I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this letter to the editorial desks of the New York Times, and of a few other English newspapers in the U.S. and the UK, because I think that it is important that readers abroad know that the views expressed in this paper don't represent the "mainstream" view of Israelis. They should also be aware of Ha'aretz's poor journalistic standards.

Sincerely,

Jeff Shames
Rehovot, Israel

Woe to Israel

2008-07-16T11:45:00.003+03:00

Today Israel completed another exchange deal with Hizbullah. This day will go down in history as a day of unprecedented self-inflicted shame and humiliation for the State of Israel.

It is a day when Israeli society and leaders decided to sacrifice supreme national interests in the face of pressure from bereived families and because of political expediency.

Today Israel decided to knowingly and willingly strengthen its enemies politically, militarily and strategically.

Today Israel set a new precedent in absurd exchanges: bodies and body parts for a dispicable criminal convicted in a civilian court of mass murder. By doing so it raised the price that Israel will have to pay for future captives higher than ever. Our enemies now know that they do not even have to give their prisoners alive. All they have to do is conceal their death and let the Israeli media and families do their work to pressure the government to capitulate.

Today is the day that hypocrite Israeli leaders lost any shred of credibility that they had, after declaring repeatedly in the past that they would not release Samir Kuntar.

Today Israel's weakness and currupt spirit is laid bare for all to see. It has made a joke of its own criminal justice system and international law, granting Hizbullah the legitimacy of a state and their terrorists who are held captive by us, the status of POWs and war heros.

Today I fear for the future of this country, which appears to have lost its instinct for collectuve self preservation.

The likelihood of the improbable

2008-07-07T09:25:00.002+03:00

I can explain how I deal with people's objections regarding the apparent improbabilities of abiogenesis and mutations from simple to complex life forms.

1. Suppose I take a walk and find a green Dentyne wrapper in a specific place on the sidewalk. Now ask, 20 years before, If I were to ask somebody, what is the chance that 20 years from now, there will be a green Dentyne wrapper on this specific place on the sidewalk, on this specific date and time, and somebody named JS will walk by and see it? The answer is, exceedingly low; yet it happenned, because of out of all of the millions of improbable things to occur, some of them will definitely happen.

2. The human mind is wired to be able to grasp magnitudes within a certain range, that occur within our experience. I few inches, a few miles, a few years, a few hundred items, etc. We cannot conceive of things that are exceedingly small or big. Can you picture 93,000,000 miles? A thousand light-years distance? 10 million years? An Angstrom of distance? Most certainly not. Yet they exist and we accept their existence. Similarly we cannot grasp extremely small non-zero improbabilities, over vasts amounts of time and space, and what they mean, except in mathematical models. Our intuition doesn't help here. So one might say that both naturalists and diests believe in things we can't quite grasp. I go with naturalistic because that's "where the money is"-- the approach has led to great progress and achievements.

Haaretz

2008-05-28T22:42:00.002+03:00

As a follow up to my post yesterday, Haaretz today (one day later)reports that a deal is far off.

Other Isreali media have dropped the subject altogether.

All of this further demonstrates the poor professional journalistic standards of Haaretz.

I advise all of my readers to continue writing to Haaretz editors to complain.

Letter to Ha'aretz (in reference to article reporting supposed deal reached with Hizbullah to free Israeli capives Regev and Goldvasser)

2008-05-28T07:47:00.002+03:00

Dear Mr. Stern,

I think that you and your paper should be exercising more editorial responsibility.

Israel newspapers in general, but Haaretz in particular, are guilty of extremely poor editorial and reporting standards, as exemplified in this article. You take some remarks from an undisclosed source, who may be speculating or not in a position to know what is really going to happen, and make it into a headline story "scoop". In this case you also take the words of our arch-enemy and master propagandist Nasrallah, and present them as authoritative and the words of God. By doing so you are knowingly being used by him in his psychological warfare against the Israeli public, the families involved, in order to demoralize Israelis and apply pressure. (Maybe this is what you want, I don't know)

This amounts to tendentious reporting and cynical use of the media, something unbecoming of a major newspaper. The fact that you stipulate by saying "sources say..." does not exempt you from responsibility. I could report "sources say" on just about anything, from an impending Israeli attack on Iran to the coming of the Messiah. How many times in the past 3 years did your paper report on a supposedly impending release of Shalit? Or a cease fire with the Palestinians?

Your web news site is like that of Debka except on the other side of the political spectrum. I have no problem with a paper that has an editorial slant, but there are journalistic professional standards which you don't abide by. When I compare you with American newspapers with which I am very familiar, I cannot imagine them ever publishing a story like this at all, particularly as a lead headline.

I am at the center of the political spectrum, and I cannot help but conclude that your paper is on par with extreme left anti-zionist papers of Europe, whose editorial slant is so extreme that it loses all objectivity and accuracy. The stories in your paper are used by Arabs and other abroad as weapons against us in the war for public opinion. I have no problem with open reporting that tells the truth, but that is not what your newspaper does. This story is typical of that problem.

Israel's dove and hawks: How can we explain the differences?

2008-03-11T09:56:00.005+02:00

I like analyzing issues cognitively. It helps me master and understand things that bother me. I have always been intrigued by a particular question: How can intelligent, educated and experienced Israelis, in their analysis of Israel's predicaments, come to diametrically opposing views and conclusions. Although the right/left divide in Israel and shifted over time and takes various forms, the basic world view and plan for what needs to be done remains the same. These positions can be summarized as follows:

For the left, Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians, at the cost of extensive concessions (giving up land), and this peace is within reach if Israel were to only make the correct moves.

According to the right, peace is currently not achievable with them, even with land concessions, and we need to fight them with toughness, until such time that they give up on trying to throw us into the see, then make peace with them on our terms.

I think that for many people, political views are a function of their temperament and emotions. They have a basic belief about themselves and the world around them, in terms of trust and human nature. Subsequesntly their attitude towards a particular issue will be colored by this. The right/left divide encompasses a wide range of issues beyond the Arab Israeli conflict, and people tend to align themselves among fairly consistent lines. This collection of positions is a function of their basic world view.

In cognitive behavioral science, we know that in many cases, emotions and reactions follow thoughts, and not vice versa. In reaction to a particular event, a person will have particular automatic thoughts about the situation, which subsequently evokes certain emotions-- such as anger, disgust, sadness or fear. These automatic thoughts are dependent on the person's upbringing, experience and personality. They aren't necessarily based on a well thought out, objective analysis, but rather a reflex perception of the situation.

Another related factor is the person's system of values. These values reflect a person's basic priorities in terms of importance. Issues such as life, family, nation, health, spirituality and economic well-being are important to all of us, but we all weigh them differently.

Beyond emotions and values, what are the basic assumptions and thoughts inherent in the rightist or leftist positions? I will try to sort them out in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1. The nature of human beings.

The leftist believes that most humans are inherently good, if only given the proper opportunity. When they behave badly it is for a reason (bad things happened to them), and if this bad thing is corrected, these people will be good.

The rightist believes that there are alot of bad people out there, who need no excuses for their evil. This people will be bad no matter what you do for them.

In the case of the Palestinians, the leftist says that terrorism is only a result of good people doing bad things because of Palestinians poverty and displacement, which needs to be corrected. According to the rightist, among the Palestinians are lots of evil people who will continue to be evil whatever we give them, and therefore must be fought.

2. Good Will

The right believes that when facing evil, gestures and concessions are interpreted as weakness and only encourage bad people to do more evil things. Thus, in their lexicon, concessions are appeasement.

The left would say that the evil is not really evil but some good people doing bad things, and that concessions are needed in order to get them to stop doing (or supporting) bad things.

The implications of this debate are clearly reflected in our conflict with the Palestinians, when a concession is a "gesture" or "appeasement" depending on your point of view.

3. The future

I heard a telephone call on a talk show yesterday, in which the caller was exhorting the Israeli government to talk to Hamas to stop the rockets. When asked what to talk about, she answered that we need to offer more land. When the talk show host pointed out that we in fact handed over Gaza to them in its entirety, and all we got back were rockets and terror, and that Hamas openly states that their goal is to get rid of us entirely, she answered that she can't imagine that her children and grandchildren are going to have to go on fighting for many years. I think that this gets to the crux of the matter-- the leftist, emotionally and cognitively, finds it too painful to acknowledge that there might be no end in sight to the conflict. This goes against his basic belief in human goodness. He therefore pretends that it is within his power to solve the problem. It is a form of denial from fatigue.

The right states that there will only be a solution to the conflict when the evil people are defeated, however long this takes. Concessions at this point may bring very short term quiet, but will not solve the problem and only exacerbate the problem later. If it takes another generation, so be it. (Interestingly, it is this long term thinking that governs many Palestinians, who are willing to suffer tremendously in the past, present and the forseeable future, for some far-off goal, rather than take what they can get now.)

Hamas in Gaza-Good or Bad?

2008-03-10T07:48:00.009+02:00

For almost 2 years, in the wake of Israel's disengagement, the Gaza strip has been ruled by Hamas, the fundamentalist Islamic organization, considered a terrorist group by most of the international community. This is commonly seen as a victory for extreme Islam, with Iran and Al Qaida at the forefront. Israel now has a client state of Iran on its southern border.

Certainly Israel and the west would prefer a moderate, pro-western regime bordering Israel which could negotiate peace with Israel and be a member of "moderate" Arab or Muslim countries. This has not happened, and, prior to Hamas' coup, it was also not the case. While nominally the Fatah-ruled PA was sovereign, on the ground the PA had very little control, in the face of armed resistance from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a host of other radical groups.

Notwithstanding political and military maneuvering, Israel had very little influence on the internal political developments among the Palestinians.
Like most situations in real life, the issue is complex, and each of the various scenarios entails threats and opportunities. Rarely in the international arena does one see an outcome that is purely "good" or "bad". With regards to Gaza, what are the pros and cons of Hamas rule in Gaza, in relation to the alternative scenarios? Let us start with the negatives:

1. Hamas ideology is uncompromisingly anti-Israel and anti-semitic, and it will not ever recognize Israel nor make permanent peace with it. This is unquestioningly a big "bad" on this side of the scale.

2. Hamas, with the support of Iran, Hizbullah and other extremist states, will continue to build up its military capability. It is gradually acquiring the abilities of Hizbullah. Although it may take some time, it is conceivable that in the future they might succeed in acquiring tanks, long range missiles and warplanes. This strengthening is occuring primarily via smuggling through the Egyptian border, both above ground and through tunnels.

3. They pose a immediate strategic threat, not in conventional military terms, but in their ability to harm civilians and civilian life by firing short range rockets at will. This is similar to Hizbullah's capability, although somewhat lower in intensity at this time.

4. Any and all "gains" made by Hamas, real or imagined, (in terms of terrorist attacks, abilities, continued rule) will have the psychological impact of being seen as a victory for extremist forces. This perception forestalls any tendency to surrender or make peace. Furthermore it helps gain support among the population, who see these forces as the "winning" side, as opposed to the moderate "losers".

All of this points to a very undesirable situation. At the same time it has to be viewed in contrast to the realistic alternatives, and not those that we fantasize about fashioning with our own hands. Since Fatah/PA is a weak organization (and has been for some time, even in the peak of Arafat's power), it is extremely unlikely that they would be able to govern Gaza effectively and to our liking. This was in fact the situation prior to the Hamas takeover. In this scenario, you essentialy have a "failed state" like Somalia, Sudan, pre-war Afghanistan, etc. In relation to this situation, what can be seen as some of the "positives" of Hamas rule?

1. Being the sole and strong rulers in Gaza, Hamas de facto becomes an address, diplomatically and militarily. Thus any institution of the government or armed forces becomes a ligitimate target. This avoids the untenable situation of having to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Palestinians (in the eyes of the world) when fighting them. More than any, that scenario forces Israel to fight with its hands tied.

2. Hamas is unquestionably in control of the security situation in Gaza and is able to control, almost entirely, attacks on Israel. Thus, when dealing with them, and attempting to manage the conflict, we have someone to deal with who can actually control the situation (and are to some degree subject to deterrance). This is like Syria or Egypt before the peace treaty. In contrast, with a powerless PA in charge, there was nobody to deal with, and worse, the extremist organization were always out to prove that the PA was not in control. We would have has security chaos, as in Southern Lebanon during the civil war. This is an undesirable and unstable situation for Israel.

3. The entire international community has backed an embargo and blockade of Gaza, in the face of terrorist activity. This would never have been possible if the PA where in charge.

4. The PA/Fatah, while not a fundamentalist Islamic organization, is still a bitter enemy and also propagates anti-semitic and anti-Israel sentiment among Palestinians and actively fights us. Yet, hiding under the veil of international legitimacy, they are successfully able to employ the "good cop/bad cop" technique with us. They are in fact doing this in the West bank-- in the form of demands for unilateral gestures and concessions and small scale terrorist attacks, while constantly threatening that Hamas will take over if we don't give in. This problem tied our hands

How do we weigh these factors against one another? While in the long term we all hope for comprehensive peace, it is important to remember that in the short term the Palestinian problem can only be managed, not solved. The fringes of the left and right forget this. The ways of managing it are varied, with advantages and disadvantages to each approach. In the long term nobody knows precisely how the current scenario will play out. It seems likely that Hamas will strenghthen itself in Gaza and become a bigger security challenge, among others that Israel faces now and have faced in the past. In the context of history, each one of these threats have been managed, not neutralized, and so will the current one in Gaza. Israel has been successful at managing threats, but much less so preventing them (with a few notable exceptions such as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility). This failure to anticipate and prevent threats requires examination, in the context of Israel's military, financial and diplomatic assets and limitations.

In an ideal world, a major power would intervene in Gaza by completely occupying and rehabilitating the area, until such time that the people living there could govern themselves, Marshall-plan style. But the geo-political situation makes this unlikely to happen. There is nobody both willing and capable for the job. Certainly not Israel. Therefore, in the current reality we are forced to deal among less desirable alternatives, over which we have very little influence. Imagine that we enter Gaza and remove Hamas from power. Than what? They would continue to fire rockets, under the guise of Fatah.

We should do whatever we can militarily to stop the rocket fire, but we should carefully consider the goal of the removal of Hamas.

'It's a Holocaust' and Palestinian Muslim Psychosis

2008-03-03T07:45:00.000+02:00

One of Israel's less bright ministers Matan Vilnai (a former reserves general), commented last week that Hamas's policy of firing rockets and terrorism are bringing a "shoah" upon the Palestinian people. The correct intepretation of the word 'shoah' is "catastrophe" or "disaster", and this is what the minister obviously meant. However, we all know that it is the commonly used term for the Nazi holocaust. The English language press translated the word this way, and, predictably, the Arabs seized upon this theme, exhorting the Arab masses, the international community, and the UN to stop the new Israeli "holocaust" and extermination of the Palestinians. They were referring particularly to the recent military operations in Gaza, and in general to Israel's existence for the past 60 years.

Now we are all familiar with the unending stream of Palestinian propoganda and lies which are used to recruit international condemnation of Israel, and this is not a new story. It is not the first time that they have called the Israelis 'Nazis' and it won't be the last. But we don't need an Israeli minister, with the assistance of Israel's English language presss, providing them with convenient excuses.

Speaking of excuses: Have you read about Hamas's version of events in Gaza? It was a heroic 'victory' for the Palestinians and a 'humiliating defeat' of the IDF. The same Hamas news report lamenting the extermination and destruction of the Palestinian people goes on the celebrate the exit of the IDF forces (a planned end of a limited operation) as a victory. We all know that Israel and the IDF are planning a series of unspecified actions to stop the rockets, and the most recent operation was limited to specific military goals, including intelligence gathering and preparations for other operations. So here's the absurdity: If we're killing the terrorists, its a massacre/holocaust/extermination (even its just one terrorist). If we leave and stop killing them, it's their heroic victory and our defeat!! This is very similar to the delusional thinking of a schizophrenic.

This bespeaks two aspects of Palestinian (and more generally, fundamentalist Islam) psychopathology, to which I have referred in previous posts:

1. Palestinian lives, both civilian and militants, are worth very little in their society. They are used as fodder for the struggle, and no matter that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 are 'sacrificed' for some insane or hopeless cause. This is part of the Muslim emphasis on martyrdom and the well known afterlife that awaits Muslim males. So no matter how bitter their actual defeat, they 'won'. If they win they win, and if they lose they win. What a great way to run a society!! It's hard to know how many Palestinians actually believe this, but the fact that their leaders use these lies to perpetuate the conflict indicates that it works. Just like Hizbullah's "divine victory" over Israel in Lebanon. I suspect that the 1967 war set the victory bar too high. Anything short of a stunning and humiliating defeat over the Arabs is a victory for them.

2. Issue #1, and the aformentioned 'holocaust' issue reflects a broader psychic illness in Palestinian (and in many Muslim) societies: a refusal to recognise reality and accept a sober appraisal of their situation. There are many reasons for this--political, cultural and religious. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily emotional and psychological. It is not an overstatement to say that the Palestinian society suffers from national psychosis. Psychotics are capable of doing alot of damage to others as well as themselves. Maybe there's not much consolation in the fact that in the end most psychotics who are not treated self-destruct. This indeed has been the tragic story of the Palestinian Arabs- of one disaster to the next, fed by a pathological misinterpretation and prediction of events. This is also what is happening to their imploding national movement. It seems that the American and Israelis are more enthusiastic supporters of a Palestinian state than the Palestinians themselves. In the meantime there is no indication that the Palestinians are sobering up- in the contrary, their psychosis seems to be getting worse, encouraged by the ever-psychotic Iranians. Lets hope that when they collapse they don't bring down too many of us with them.

Israel's Supreme Court and the "Cycle of Violence"

2008-02-25T07:49:00.000+02:00

In an unprecedented criticism by a high government official on Israel's High Court, Professor Daniel Friedman boldly (Justice Minister) notes that the court has become a politicized power center allied with Meretz (a far left party) and the Arabs. When one of these parties becomes frustrated with the democratic parliamentary process in dealing with its agenda, it can appeal to "Bagatz" in order to bypass the government. Not a week goes by without the court ordering the government to do or not do something. The court's judges even lobby by releasing statements and meeting with public officials and journalists in order to influence the political process. This is without parallel in any democratic country. Shame on Israel. We wish Professor Friedman success in his attempts to reform the court.

Lately, we are again hearing statements by some Israeli and European officials regarding the need to stop the "cycle of violence" between Israel and the Palestinians. These statements result from the same "original sin", that error in thinking, that brought about our dismal supreme court behavior: That we are in control of, and subsequently at fault for everything that happens around us. The Arabs hate us? Its our fault. Hamas in power and they're attacking us? Its our fault. The Palestinians' misery? Yep, it's us again. In other words, we're adopting the narrative of our enemy. This is not unlike Europe's appeasement of Hitler before the war.

What does a "cycle of violence" mean? It implies that two sides, unable to control themselves, perpetrate violence against each other, bringing about inevitable reactions. It is a subtle attempt to put Israel on par with the Palestinians, and in fact places most of the blame on Israel, since we are the stronger side and thus in control. But let's look at the situation and see why this is a fallacy.

The Palestinians are divided into 2 main camps: one that is nationalist and strives for a state, and the other which is Islamic and pre-nationalist. The former movement has not renounced violence as a means to achieving its goals, and continues to engage in terrorist attacks. The latter effectively controls the Palestinian public and political atmosphere. This Islamic stream (along with their brethren in other Arab countries) has an ideology and policy of "resistance", i.e. military aggression, violence and terrorism, to achieve its goal of elimination of the Jewish State. In other words, its violence is in response to Israel's existence. So if we can call our existence as "violence" than indeed this is a cycle of violence: we exist and they attack us. I wonder how we can get out of that "cycle". We know what their solution is. It goes without saying that Israel's military reactions are defensive operations, made necessary by Palestinian aggression, whose sole purpose is to defend its citizens. Needless to say, Israel is able to control its actions, unlike the Palestinians who themselves admit that they are unable to control their militants (unless, of course, we give in to their demands).

Occasionally, one can attribute a localized "flareup" to a cycle of action and response. But to attempt to characterize the overall violence as a "cycle of violence", is tendentious and an outright lie. It is an intentional misrepresentation of the conflict whose purpose is to absolve the Palestinians of their responsibilities and to place the burden on Israel to break the "cycle of violence".

Religion and extremism

2008-02-18T09:52:00.000+02:00

A recent pronouncement by leading rabbis from the national religious movement calls for exempting religious soldiers in the IDF from participating in army training classes being taught by female soldiers. A careful reading of their p'sak halacha reveals the intellectual dishonesty and the unfortunate trend of Heredization in the national religious movement.

The founding fathers of the national religious would have never dreamt of making such a pronouncement. This movement was dedicated to integrating halacha and the state, and to encouraging religious people to participate in broader national life. In the past 15 years, we have seen a gradual but consistent slide to stricter halachic rulings in various areas, such as kashrut, mixed youth groups and army practices. It is as if they have to prove to the cheredim that they are just as "kosher", but in doing so, they are leading their public into increasing isolation from Israeli society. It also causes "moderates" in the camp to ignore the rabbis altogether (like me).

An analysis of the rabbi's call reveals their halachic thinking. You begin with a point of view, based on your world view, ethics or politics. The position may or may not have merit. (My opinion is that there is logic in their concerns regarding ethical norms in the army). Then you begin to quote biblical verses, taken totally out of context, to support the view and give it halachic validity. This is very similar to how many rulings are derived in the talmud. Note that the rabbis do not quote any classic halachic sources that address the issue, either because there aren't any, or worse, they are not applicable. I wouldn't have a problem with this except for one glaring inconsistency : It is used in one direction only-- in the direction of strictness. If the rabbis truly had the courage to take Jewish law into their own hands, they would use their authority to eliminate all kinds of laws that aren't relevant in our day and relieve significant hardship (extra days of niddah, shimita, and aguna for example). Instead, they simultaneuously adhere to the talmudic rulings (as though they are immutable), while piling on strict rulings based on their own logic and world view and give it the authority of the Torah.

The rabbis think that they are being far-sighted but in fact the opposite is true-- they are further alienating Judaism and religion from the general population and bring disgrace to the national religious movement.

Qassams and Blockades

2008-01-27T10:41:00.000+02:00

For the past few weeks we have been witness to an absurd situation. The Palestinians, with the approval of their Hamas terrorist quasi-government, launches rockets and morters at civilian Israeli border communities. Israel responds by closing its borders and stopping Israeli supplies from reaching the terrorist entity. Then the Palestinians, with the support of the leftist international community hypocrites, cry afoul "collective punishment", and demand that we supply them with fuel. Can you imagine such a standard being applied to any country under attack from a neighbor other than Israel? Would civilian and infrastructure targets be off the table if your civilians are being attacked?

What is more absurd is that Israel's own supreme court lends a hand to this ridiculous process, by agreeing to hear urgent appeals by "human rights" groups who worry only about the welfare of the Palestinians but not that of Israel's own citizens. Can you imagine the US supreme court intervening in military tactics in Iraq?

Let the Palestinians walk and suffer in the cold, as long as Sderot children bedwet, as PM Ehud Olmert said.

The world forces Israel to fight with its hands tied behind its back, like a prize fighter who would be allowed to defend himself in the ring using only his right great toe.

Haaretz--self hating Jews

2008-01-09T07:32:00.000+02:00

Anybody who has been reading my blog is familiar with my rantings about Israel's far left anti-Zionist newspaper Haaretz.
Recently they have outdone themselves. In a meeting between Condoleezza Rice and leading Israeli businessman and journalists, Haaretz's managing editor David Landau told Dr. Rice that "Israel wants to be raped" and forced by the US into a settlement with the Palestinians and it would be his "wet dream" to see this. He also called Israel a "failed state".
Here is the story in The Jewish Week

Lest there be any doubts in anybody's mind, the editors of Haaretz share views about Israel with the likes of Norman Finklestein, Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer.

What is particularly dangerous in this is that foreign reporters view Ha'aretz as representing respectable liberal thinking in Israel, whereas they in fact represent the view of a very small radical post-zionist left.

More leftist dribble

2008-01-06T08:45:00.000+02:00

Since Annapolis, and with GW's upcoming visit to Israel, many on Europe's and Israel's left are beginning to drool at the mouth again regarding the possibility of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. The favorite scapegoats being blamed for the peace messiah not coming include the usual parade: the settlers, Bibi, Olmert, and the religious. We're seeing headlines in Ha'aretz of "progress" in the meetings between Livni and Palestinian officials, reports of an impending prisoner exchange (despite Haaretz's abysmal history of grossly inaccurate reporting on this numerous times in the past), and of the "strengthening" of the Fatah moderates. According to these pundits, the only things interfering with diplomatic progress towards an agreement are settlements and the lack of Israeli "gestures" to the Palestinians.

As I have explained on a previous post, for several reasons there is no chance of an agreement in the foreseeable future. Even though Olmert and other western leaders know this, they cannot come out and say this openly. Instead, for political reasons, they must maintain the illusion of diplomatic activity, to satisfy their constituents and the Europeans. At the same time they must manage the conflict diplomatically and militarily, keeping it on low flame and out of the headlines.

I think that this explains Israel's approach in dealing with Gaza and the Kassam problem. The only other alternative is a massive invasion and prolonged occupation of the strip, with all that this entails. Of course such an invasion doesn't guarantee the stopping of Kassams (it didn't when we were in Gaza), and the military and diplomatic costs would be very high, perhaps not justifying any benefits gained. I think that both sides are playing a game by certain unwritten rules that both can realistically "live" with, until such time that one side, either intentionally or unintentionally, breaks them. At the same time Israel needs to continue work at a furious pace towards the development of an effective anti-rocket system.

Idiot of the Day Award

2007-12-24T21:32:00.000+02:00

As many of you may have read, Israel is considering broadening the criteria for Palestinians prisoners qualifying for release in a potential swap. The negotiators claim that with current "no blood on their hands" criteria, there are no prisoners left!!
So today on the morning radio I heard Rafi Eitan, the health minister offer forth the following argument for release of murderers, including the ringleader Marwan Barguti: The prisoners organise themselves and remain activist in prison anyway (evidently we allow them to do so). So there's no reason to hold on to them, and if and when they return to terrorism (which they are extremely likely to do) we can simply arrest them again or kill them.
This is not only morally bankrupt but sheer lunacy. The terrorists kill or injure Israelis. IDF risks soldiers lives to capture them, after they commit terrorist acts. They are tried and convicted in a court of law. We then summarily release them so that they continue their activities, thus risking the lives of their potential victims and of the soldiers who have to arrest them again. Can you imagine Rafi Eitan making the same argument for releasing jailed common criminals?

Very compelling logic and brilliant strategic thinking.

Matan Vilnai, vice primier, and another over-confident and under-intelligent minister, states that we have to do anything to secure Shalit's release, and if this means releasing the arch-terrorist Barguti, then so be it. According to this logic, even if Hamas demands we withdraw from Jerusalem or disband the IDF we must do so, since we must pay any price.

Israel's Newspapers

2007-12-23T10:30:00.000+02:00

Here's another example of the Israeli press's immature journalism and Ami Ayalon's stupidity.
Suddenly, yesterday every paper was carrying a story reporting some of this idiot's remarks, that could come either from the journal "Duh!", or from Neville Chamberlain's School of International Relations. Here are some of the "pearls" quoted in the stories:
1. There is a military intelligence "failure" in that we don't have enough information to rescue Shalit.
2. We should do no less to stop the Qassams than what we're doing to get Shalit back (presumable he means talk to Hamas)
3. Here's to real duezy: Hamas is now asking for a cease fire because they are in distress, for what reason? Because of the diplomatic process since Annapolis. (Not because of our military successes against them)

I can't believe that this guy was really head of the Shabak! Its kind of scary that he has a say in government policies.

Ayalon's PR man must have launched a campaign to get him some publicity, otherwise how can we explain why the ranting of a second rate politician suddenly appear in the headlines in all of the online papers? Israel's major newspapers, in their unprofessionalism, cooperate in this scam.

Now I figured it out

2007-12-10T10:08:00.000+02:00

In one of my Shabbat discusions with a friend, I finally came to understand the essence of why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is destined to continue, and why around the world we are so misunderstood:

Good will.

Online definition:
"An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence.
Cheerful acquiescence or willingness.
A good relationship, as of a business with its customers or a nation with other nations."

The American/western culture, in essence, values the "other" and sees conflict as a way of resolving misunderstanding. In other words, if 2 parties have a disagreement, it results from misunderstanding each other. Since the parties really want to resolve their differences, negotiation is really about problem solving and increasing each side's understanding of the other's needs and interests, thereby finding a creative solution. Everybody wins. American negotiation is characterized by pragmatic problem solving, with "goodwill" gestures and avoiding dirty tricks.

This is not part of Palestinian Arab culture, which sees negotiation more as a zero sum gain. I win and you lose. They are not men of good will. Gestures on our part, which we and the Americans see as "goodwill", are seen by them as concessions out of weakness, to be pocketed, and used in the future against us. Have we ever seen a "good will" gesture from them? I'm not saying we're all sugary with them, but there is a gulf between us in our basic approaches to negotiation. Herein lies the problem. We approach peace talks from a problem solving point of view, they view it as a method to defeat us, in lieu of or in parallel to, military force. In this case the rules of negotiation are very different than ours. Lying, cheating, and trickery are legitimate tools in negotiation to defeat the enemy. (They quite openly still refer to us as the "enemy"). Witness Iran's antics in dealing with the West.

Here in Israel I work for a medical HMO. We have branches in East Jerusalem, run by local Arabs. I am told by my administrative colleagues that doing projects with them is nearly impossible. Why? Because we'll set up a meeting, come up with agreement on a plan, and shake hands over it. Later, when the plan isn't implemented, when the local Arab administrative head is confronted, he behaves as though no plan was agreed upon and we have to start all over.

So the Americans and Europeans see the problem as an issue of misunderstanding, whereas in truth, we understand each other all too well.

Therefore, I don't see a resolution in the foreseeable future, until the Pals lose all hope of defeating us.

Did religion evolve?

2007-11-11T14:10:00.000+02:00

One of the hot topics now among evolutionary biologists is the existence and survival of religion among human beings. Is religion and belief part of our wiring? In Darwinian theory a trait that evolved and survived did so for a reason. Did it evolve in order to give the species some survival advantage? If so, what about it modern times? The plethora of religious beliefs as far back as recorded history, and its existence everywhere, is fascinating. That people are drawn to faith is certain, but why?
One school of reasoning is that faith is indeed an adaptive evolved trait. It gave groups a survival advantage, whose members organized around a group of similar believers, giving them a social structure and primitive organized society. To the individual, faith gives strength, comfort, community support and predictability.
Others argue that religion logically is maladaptive, in that the person believes in imagined beings and false explanations. So how could that be a survival advantage? Seemingly, the most "logical" rational intelligence would have an advantage over others. According to this school, religion is considered a "spandrel" (literally, the unplanned space between two arches). In evolutionary theory, a spandrel is an "unintended" byproduct of another trait that is in fact, advantageous to survival. A classic example, which Dawkins gives, is the moth, which uses the angle of incidence from the sun to navigate in a straight line. Since the sun is at an infinite distance, this angle doesn't change. But a close artificial light source, like a lamp, is close, so the angle changes, causing the moth to spiral into the light.
Man's large cortex and intelligence gave him an advantage over other species. Part of this intelligence includes determination of cause and effect. Certainly a creature who could learn well from mistakes and figure out the causes for things would do better than a creature who couldn't. Yet ancient man didn't have to tools to really understand the cause of many natural phenomena around him. So his drive to understand these things lead him to find hidden, unseen causes for these experiences. So the basic intellectual trait, which is adaptive, went "awry" with religion.

Both explanations seem plausable. My sense is that by observing how people today are drawn to religion that even now it has adaptive value in helping people living a meaningful and healthy life.

Absolute or Relative Morality?

2007-10-27T22:56:00.000+02:00

Religious fundamentalists (including Jews) claim moral superiority because their morality is absolute, from God, as opposed to secular and humanistic values, that shift over time. Herein lies the biggest flaw in their ideology.

Any serious student of Jewish history and halachah knows that Jewish law and morality has shifted over time. This is true for all religions. Even for the ultra-orthodox morality and law is not absolutist but evolved over time (albeit more slowly than general society), given societal pressures. Their morality is a function of the society with which they identify. Yes, it is anchored in an ancient tradition through a process, but it definitely shifts.

Think about attitudes about women, relations with non-Jews, slavery, economics, sacrifice, etc. To assert that Jewish ethics is absolute is completely ridiculous. A good book about this topic is "T'murot B'sadeh Hahalach", by Akiva Sternberg (in Hebrew).

As far as God being the source of morality, I would posit that most religious people observe their ethical norms because of the societal structure that they live in, not because of God, since clearly they have to determine what God wants of them through man's interpretation ("an eye for an eye", etc). Do not kill? It depends who is doing the killing and the being killed!!Would a Beit Din now burn a prostitute? This "intepretation" changes due to societal pressures and circumstances.

Just like American culture is a function of American history, laws, norms and societal pressure, Judaism started as the ethical and legal system of ancient Israel, and bears little resemblance to modern Judaism (even though many ultraorthodox like to believe that they are observing Judaism like they did during the Temple era).

IMHO, morality is a man-made construct to make society more livable, and is part of our emotional makeup. Religion then adds holiness to it and gives it metaphysical meaning. This perhaps strengthens it but also makes it resist the inevitable adaptation and change. Maybe for the better but who knows?

To all readers!

2007-10-13T21:46:00.000+02:00

Please Note: I have changed the settings to this blog to allow anonymous comments, so you don't need to log in or have an account.

I welcome all of your comments!

JS

The teacher's strike in Israel is seriously disrupting hundreds of thousands of high school students and their families (including mine). Israel still has a very strong socialist vestige, and the labor laws and courts essentially block the possibility or breaking a strike. In the recent past, Israel has been afflicted by strikes at Ben Gurion airport, the sea ports, city services (including garbage collection), banks, universities, hospitals and postal services. There has been some form of teacher's strike almost every academic year. I would claim that at a societal level this is very dysfunctional and would qualify for a Darwin Award. Most of the strikes end with very marginal gains for the strikers, who then strike again after a short time. They are often political in nature, intended to advance the interest of a particular labor leader or organization. The electric company, which is a national monopoly and has the highest paid workers of any sector in the economy (including private), can also strike and bring the country to its knees but shutting down the power (although this hasn't happened in a long time, thankfully).

It's about time that Israel revises its labor law to ban strikes in the public sector (such a law exists in the US for federal workers) . In 2002 when Bibi Netanyahu was finance minister he initiated legislation to outlaw public worker strikes but backed down when the unions agreed to accepts wage cuts during a severe economic slowdown. These strike cause severe economic damage to Israel, not only in direct losses in productivity, but due to harm in its industry's ability to meet commitments to international partners, and thus result in lost/cancelled agreements, future deals and imposed penalties.

Peace Negotiations

2007-10-08T09:59:00.000+02:00

One might almost begin to believe the news reports regarding negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The fact is that these are destined to go nowhere for the forseeable future. Here's why:

1. Everybody--the Americans, the Israelis and the Palestinians--know that the bottom line positions of the two sides are mutually incompatible. Israel cannot give the Palestinians the state they seek and remain viable herself.
2. The extremists on the Palestinian side will veto any potential agreement using violence and terrorism. This can be counted on.
3. The Americans are stretched thin militarily and diplomatically and cannot do anything unilaterally. They need the support of the Europeans for dealing with Iran, Iraq, N Korea and Syria.
4. It follows from 1-3 above, that, to help get Europe on board, the best course for the Americans is to create the illusion of diplomatic activity and that they are trying to solve the Middle East's problems. Thus all of Condy's trips. the November conference, etc.
5. It follows from 4, above, that Israel must cooperate with this game, knowing full well that it will lead nowhere, and that it must tread carefully in order to avoid being pressured into making compromises that jeapordize its current or future security. Thus, the talks with Abu Mazen, who is powerless to cancel a parking ticket, and trial balloons in the press every day.
If the past is any indication, it would seem that at some point the negotiations will blow up (again) and lead to a new wave of violence.

Zionism, US foreign policy, and Muslim Terrorism

2007-09-27T22:01:00.000+02:00

Because of propaganda directed at the West, by Al Qaida and Palestinian terrorist groups, it is easy for some of us (either because of wishful thinking or well-meaning humanistic ideals) to be convinced that terrorism is a desperate, pained response by the Muslims to real or perceived injustices. If somehow we could only redress these greivances, we could get to the root cause of terrorism. This is the standard narrative of the Left here in Israel and liberals in America. Never mind that there isn't any evidence for this being true, given our experience with terrorism (particularly that it INCREASES any time we make gestures, concessions, or attempt to make agreements).
For those of you who have any doubt about the matter, I advise you to read this. Basically, the author shows that propaganda directed to western liberal audiences (particularly the message that terrorism is punishment for Western misbehavior, and promises to stop if certain conditions are met) is psychological warfare, while in propaganda to Arabs no mention is made of Zionist or American crimes. Rather, the issue is the fundamental Muslim attitude towards the kufr, the non-believer.
These Muslims harbor resentment over their status of inferiority in relation to the western world. In any measurable sphere of human progress-- economic, scientific, technological, and political-- they are behind. The fact that the kufr is more powerful than them and not subservient is unacceptable in their theology. In their view the Quran commands them to fight the kufr until defeat or until they convert to Islam.
The Palestinian cause has been effectively hijacked by Islamicism. It is no longer about nationalism, because they could have had their Palestinian state along time ago. The Palestinian terrorists' narrative is that of unending Islamic resistance to the heretics and their control over "Islamic lands".
Our strategy is to utterly defeat them, or bring them to the point where they feel that their cause is hopeless.

Moral Psychology, Columbia U and Ahmadinejad

2007-09-24T07:51:00.000+02:00

The recent controversy surrounding Ahmadinejad's visit to New York and the audience granted to him at Columbia highlights the moral dilemmas and conflicting values inherent in liberal Western values. While most of the media and politicians refer mainly to the limitations of the right to freedom of speech, in reality the differences of opinion on this matter reflect a deep- seated argument about morality that goes to the core of our values. By the time this essay appears I assume that much will have been said about the Iranian president's visit; therefore in this essay I will focus on the broader controversy regarding the source of our morality, using the visit as an example for analysis.

In the past few years several books have been published espousing atheism. Books by Richard Dawson, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are among the most popular recent entries into the fray. The books have generated much controversy and public reaction. Although the specifics of their styles and focus are different, the thrust of these books boils down to three main points: 1. Science, and not religion, has proven itself useful in finding answers to questions about our physican world. 2. Religion accounts for much, of not most of the evil in the world. 3. The multitude of incompatible and conflicting religious beliefs, combined with the internal inconsistencies in each, demonstrate their falsehood. All of the authors come to the same conclusion: The world would be a better place without religion. While I don't want to foray into this endless debate, I want to focus on the specific claim regarding morality: that a godless, liberal, western and rational society represents the best morality available.

Dawkins and his ilk propose that rational, fair-minded thinking is capable of producing ethics on par with those of religious communities. But what kind of ethics? While one could easily agree on the most basic tenets of humanity, such as not killing, stealing, and the provision of justice, it is beyond this point the moral systems of the religious and atheist diverge. Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginian, wrote an excellent essay entitled "Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion". (available online at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html ) Haidt speaks of 5 components of our moral sensibilities, which are functions of both our intellect and emotional makeup. (1) harm/care; (2) fairness/reciprocity; (3) ingroup/loyalty; (4) authority/respect; and (5) purity/sanctity (the sense that certain things are noble or repulsive). According to Haidt, the first 2 components make up the "contractual" model of morality, which holds the individual as the highest unit of value.

Accordingly, in this liberal world view, the ultimate ethic is to avoid harm and suffering to the individual and increase happiness. In contrast, in the religious, conservative world view, components 3,4 and 5 take no less an important role. Haidt calls this the "beehive" model, in that while the individual has rights, these are no less important than his responsibilities to the cohesivenes of the group. These responsibilities are reinforced by respect towards authority, loyalty towards one's group (whatever it may be), and a common sense of what is worthwhile and what is not. These are psychological mechanisms that help suppress the human tendency towards selfishness, and reinforce generosity, self-sacrifice and loyalty. One can assume that the "liberal" atheist outlook contains these ethical concepts as well, but they are emphasized to a much lesser degree. Furthermore, without the "myth" of religion, or national or ethnic narrative, these components of morality are much harder to maintain.

Let us now return to our case of Mr. Ahmadinejad. The liberal, secular ethic would emphasize the ultimate "fairness" of protecting the free speech of even a hostile non-citizen. Furthermore, this freedom is necessary in order to protect the individual from the potential "harm/suffering" of suppression of expression. In contrast, the "religious" view, while acknowledging the need to not harm people, nonetheless underlines the need to protect the "unit" of society, in terms of security and cohesiveness. Furthermore, it acknowledges and validates the human sense of "revulsion" that we have towards our declared enemy, thus not granting him the same treatment given to our own group.

Article from Magazine "Duh!"

2007-09-19T19:20:00.000+02:00

Here is a product of the 3000 year old accumulated Jewish intelligence:

Cabinet votes Gaza a 'hostile entity'

2 years ago we withdrew from Gaza. Since then, this "entity" has demonstrated non-stop hostility towards Israel, with daily attempts at bombing, shootings, infiltrations and rocket attacks on civilian targets. Meanwhile, we supply them with electricity, water, fuel and food. We also allow their workers to come into Israel for work. Then, if we threaten to stop materially supporting our enemies, we are accused of collective punishment.

The absurdity of this situation is a function of what Richard Dawkins calls "shifting moral zeigeist". Basically, this means that moral standards shift over time. Rights take precedence over responsibilities. During WWII or during the Vietnam War, the US or Britain could firebomb entire areas and kill civilians indiscriminately, who paid the price of the war effort. This same behavior would now be considered unacceptable, among Western powers. Nowadays the "rights" of the individual to safety (in our case the Palestinians) take precedence over the right or responsibility that Israel has to defend its citizens. It is also more important than the Palestinians' responsibility to prevent rockets being forward from their land. So Israel has to equivocate and do pilpul (talmudic back and forth analysis) before even turning off electricity in Gaza.

Iranian Nukes

2007-09-16T15:05:00.000+02:00

I propose that Ehud Olmert forward the following email to the leader of Iran:

TO: Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the entire Iranian leadership

FROM: The Jewish State

SUBJECT: Your nuclear "project"

Dear Mr. President,

Of late there has been much discussion regarding nuclear technological development in your country. Although you deny the intention to develop nuclear weapons, it is unclear what belies your evasiveness, stonewalling and diplomatic maneuvering. Furthermore, your expressed desire to wipe our country "off the map" makes your hostile intentions towards us quite clear (if you mean what you say).

As a signatory to the NNPT you have a right to nuclear technology for civilian peaceful purposes, and Israel has no intention in interfering with this. But let me be crystal clear in stating, that Israel has no intention of allowing you to "wipe" us off the map, or allowing to you to possess the means to do so. We will vigorously defend our right to exist in our land, and will do whatever is required to secure that right. I believe that recent events in Syria adequately demonstrate our willingness and ability to do so.

Whatever your attitudes are towards the West in general or Israel specifically, we have no a priori hostile intent towards you and have no wish for war. However, as the leader of my country I will not shy away from the responsibility of defending the world's sole Jewish state from destruction, by you or anybody else.

For the sake of all peoples in the region, I call upon you to openly and fully cooperate with the IAEC's effort to verify your compliance with the NNPT and to confirm your development of solely civilian nuclear capabalities.

What happened in Syria?

2007-09-09T10:28:00.000+03:00

The fog about the recent IDF incident in Syria leaves us curious and thirsty for more information. What really happened there?

Lacking inside information (even Debkafile doesn't know!), but by reconstructing a few known facts we can try to guess:

1. Even by Syrian reports this was not an accidental or incidental foray across Syria's border. It was a deep infiltration via its northwestern coastal frontier to its central-eastern sector. Yet the planes were reportedly only fired upon upon their exit to the northwest.

2. The Syrians waited a full 12 hours before reporting the infiltration. This perhaps means that they were deliberating what information to release or to report on it at all. In other words, they appear to be concealing something, perhaps the targets, or the degree to which their anti-aircraft systems failed. Note that Russia was one of the first countries to condemn the raid.

3. The dumping of the fuel tanks appears to be an evasive maneuver. On their way out the planes were detected and being fired upon, but without being hit. (One can assume that if planes were downed we would know about it from gleeful Syrians)

4. What does the Israeli silence mean? There was probably a secret, sensitive mission (beyond routine surveillance), which, either 1. did not go as planned or 2. succeeded. My impression is of the latter, because if there was a failure we would be hearing leaks and people blaming each other for it. The smug, self-confident denials (and almost uncharacteristic total silence from govenrment officials) makes me believe that the mission was succesful, or that they are waiting for intelligence assessments of the mission.

5. What could the mission have been? Possibilities include 1. a probing of the Syrian/Russion/Iranian air defense systems. 2. destruction of the above system. My guess is the first, as an attack on a military target would be a clear provocation to war in which Israel is not interested at this point.

Islam and Terrorism

2007-09-09T08:17:00.000+03:00

Five Reasons that western intellectuals give for terrorism and the Arabs/Muslims hatred of the west:

1. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and lack of a Palestinian state
2. America's support for Israel
3. America's support for non-democratic Arab/Muslim regimes
4. Poverty and economic backwardness of Arabs
5. Western exploitation of Muslims (oil)

And Five Reasons why they are wrong...

1. Every time Israel and the Palestinians get close to some kind of peace agreement terrorism increases. The Palestinians would have had their state a long time ago were it not for Hamas and the second intifada.

2. Osama bin Laden couldn't care less about the Palestinians, whose lot only worsened after 9/11. If suddenly there were Pal-Israel peace, would Ibn Laden go away? Would Muslims stop blowing up Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ssudi Arabia, Sudan?

3. The Arab world is not ready for democracy. What happened when Algeria, Gaza and Iraq tried to democratize? Islamic fundamentalists took over and guess what? terrorism. America has supported plenty of non democratic govenments in its history, without promoting terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists came from well off families, professional men.

4. Poverty and economic backwardness abounds in Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. Impoverished Hindus, Vietnamese, Brazilians, Cubans? No terrorism.

5. There is economic interdependence between OPEC countries and the west, not exploitation. The west's economy needs oil, and OPEC's countries get huge amounts of cash.

The west's excuses are just wishful thinking and adopting of the Islamists own narrative. If only WE would be good the terrorists will go away...

So, what are the real reasons?

1. Arabs and fundamentalist Muslims are offended by Western infidels' dominance of the world and their own backwardness. This contradicts their religious expectations, sensibilities, history and sense of justice.

2. As much as they hate the West, they hate even more their own co-religionists who cooperate with the West. Thus their first goal is to topple "pro-western" muslim and Arab regimes.

3. A global economy and technological development have allowed previously impossible activities for terrorists. Cheap Asian made weapons, cellphones, internet and computers have given terrorists access to the logistics and coordination previously available only to governments or large organizations. While guerrilla warfare and terrorism also existed in the past, it was much harder and much less deadly. So now the fundamentalists have new tools at their disposal. They are empowered with new abilities.

4. The Islamists understand the modern West's weaknesses and how to exploit them: tolerance, sensitivity to suffering and loss of human life, democratic systems of government.

Despite the differences, there are remarkable similarities between the rise of Islamicism and the rise of Fascism. They are populist movements, led by demagogues who take advantage of the inferiority complex of peoples, fueled by resentment from real or imagined grievances, and whose growing power and danger are underestimated by liberal western societies. Western attempts at appeasement only encourage the Islamists and strengthen them.

Here are my favorite Israel news analysis web sites

2007-09-07T09:09:00.000+03:00

Recommended sites:

Ynet-- The online version of Yediot Achronot, Israel's leading daily, available in Hebrew and English. Its a bit sensationalist, but overall gives fairly accurate headlines.
Jerusalem Post-- The leading English newspaper. The English editing is a bit weak, sometimes a bit dull, and the coverage is shallow at times. Editorial slant fairly centrist, with columnists representing both liberal and conservative views.
GPlanet-- Dr. Guy Bechor, if the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. News analysis and opinion. Provides very interesting essays regarding current events, from the point of view of an expert on Middle East affairs. Hebrew and English.
JCPA-- Excellent articles and essays on Israel, from a strategic, military and diplomatic perspective, in English.
Google News-- gives excellent coverage of the region, with often interesting news and analysis from foreign, including Arab, sites.
Israel National News-- English news site operated by Arutz 7, the right wing national religious station. The news stories are accurate, and right wing editorial for those who care to read them. Also, the site features good-news type human interest stories about life in Israel.

Not Recommended:

Haaretz-- a far left, anti-Zionist newspaper with poor editorial standards. Blatant editorial bias in news stories and headlines, and no accountability for inaccuracies. Haaretz does have a good financial section.
Debkafile-- A neo-con news and analysis website that claims to reveal behind the scenes scoops on current events. Basically conspiratorial and unreliable. Most of their "predictions" turn out to be false and their "sources" are questionable. They take bits of information, some reliable and some not, and weave them into an overall theory to fit their "spin"-- usually doom and gloom, neocon. Sometimes entertaining.

2007-09-07T07:23:00.000+03:00

This is me on a cruise in Eilat, during my tiyul (leisure trip) with work. In the background is the Jordanian mountain range, off Aqaba.

Human rights in the era of terrorism

2007-09-06T13:09:00.001+03:00

Once again Israel is being dragged through the tar by human rights organizations who claim that we targeted civilians indiscriminately during the second Lebanon war.

For the purpose of this argument, let us, for the moment, disregard the fact that Hizbullah intentionally targeted civilians, and that they hid their terrorist infrastructure within their own civilian population. The key question here is, what is deterrence? The doctrine of deterrence applies to the balance of power between states. It applied particularly during the cold war, but is an essential part of the defense doctrine of all western countries. In an era of missiles, warplanes, nuclear weapons, how do we defend our civilians? We say to our potential attacker, that whatever you do to us, we can do back to you even more harshly. If you attack our cities, we can attack yours. Otherwise, what's the use of deterrence, if, when your own population is attacked, you only attack "proportionately" again military targets only?

What other self defense is available in a situation, where rockets cannot be interecepted and cannot be located?

Israel acted correctly in bombing civilian and infrasructure targets. Now the Arabs know that we will not hesitate to massively bomb them if they bomb us. This is deterrence!

Cause and Effect

2007-09-04T09:03:00.000+03:00

One of the adaptive abilities developed by higher forms of life, especially in humans, is the ability to learn from our environment. At the most basic level we learn an association between 2 events (such as in classic conditioning). Many animals can do that. We humans, as we grow, also develop the ability to discern causality, in that we are able to distinguish, given 2 associated events, between cause an effect.
Apparently the Palestinians, stuck in their collective psychopathology, lack this skill.
The recent justifications by the Palestinians for the continued Qassam rocket fire at Sderot illustrates this. This reminds me of a maladjusted child, who misbehaves and is punished for his actions, and who then protests and misbehaves even more, claiming that he misbehaved only because of the actions of those around him who are only responding to his offensive behavior. The Palestinians, like the child, confuse cause and effect (or pretends to). Everybody knows (except the Pals themselves) that if the Palestinians were not perpetrating terrorist actions from Gaza, there would be no need for the legitimate security measures that Israel is taking, such as the closures, etc. Further reinforcing this pathology is the international community which refers to the "cycle of violence", thus absolving the Palestinians from responsibility.
Another explanation is that the Palestinians know very well the cause and effect, that the Kassams have nothing to do with Israel's behavior but more to do with internal Palestinian power struggles.
Probably the truth lies in a combination of the two.

Self-hating Israeli news reporters

2007-09-02T08:32:00.000+03:00

This article speaks for itself and confirms what I have said about many of Ha'aretz writers' unabashed anti-Israel bias.

Zionist Federation cancels Haaretz journalist
Columnist Danny Rubinstein reportedly likens Israel to apartheid South Africa

According to Alan Dershowitz's criteria, this kind of writing borders on anti-Semitism, while disproportionately demonizing and singling out of Israel for criticism, in the context of dozens of nationalistic struggles worldwide.

So now Danny Rubenstein can join the Avraham Burg club of Israel and Jew bashers.

I have found good summary articles from the excellent CAMERA site, regarding Ha'aretz's questionable editorial standards and anti-Israel bias; they can be found here and here

By no means should readers expect to obtain a balanced, responsible or objective view of events in Israel from Ha'aretz.

It's not all bad

2007-09-01T21:36:00.000+03:00

Perhaps, because of the selected emphasis of this blog, I have created an overly negative impression of events in Israel. So, on order to set the record straight, let's take note of a few additional facts:

1. The economy is continuing to grow at a healthy pace of 5-6% per year. A recent report by the IMF rates Israel's per capita income, at $31,767, placing it number 18 of the developed countries, on par with France, Germany and Italy. This is a remarkable acheivement, given Israel's challenges. About a month ago I attended a lecture by Dr. Stanley Fischer, the governor of the Bank of Israel, who is optimistic about Israel's economy. The interest rates here are lower than the US, the currency is strong with low inflation, we have large foreign currency reserves, a trade surplus, a balanced national budget, decreasing national debt and declining unemployment. All of these are basic indicators of a healthy economy. Liberalization and privatization in various sectors in the economy continues unabated

2. Israel has learned the lessons of the failures of the last war in Lebanon. Ground forces have undergone extensive additional training, and an effective short range rocket interception system is currently in the advanced stages of development. Despite the foulups of the last war, no country in the region is in a mood for a bruising fight with Israel, despite the rhetoric. The main cost of the war was an erosion of the Arab's sense that we can't be defeated, thus delaying the eventual realization that they have no choice but to make peace with us. Undoubtedly Israel faces new challenges with the potential of a nuclearized Iran, but I think that we are up to the challenge.

3. Israel has an excellent nationalized health care system based on rational allocation of resources and accessibility to all. It's not perfect, but on par with good systems in Europe. Nothing like the system presented in "Sicko".

Just to keep things in perspective...

More Ha'aretz anti-Israel bias: Darwin, where are you?

2007-08-31T11:10:00.000+03:00

Here is a gem. Ha'aretz reports, in the lead story on its web site, the the Palestinian children who were killed on Wednesday were playing tag near the rocket launchers. No other news web site is carrying this item. The article, written by Amos Harel, sarcastically comments about the IDF's initial explanation. The article implies that the army determined that the children were playing nearby and nonetheless carried out the attack. The overall tone of the article conveys a sense that the IDF acts brutally and carelessly, and then tries to cover up its mistakes.
The truth of the reporter's "scoop" is questionable, and the editorial slant is defamatory to the IDF and Israel. Furthermore, this story is carried as a LEAD HEADLINE!
This kind of dishonest crap incites Israel's enemies and provides fodder to the Palestinians propagandists and their European "human rights" friends.
This Israeli behavior is almost as maladaptive as the Palestinian's collective psychopathology.
I've come to the conclusion that much of the political and diplomatic difficulty that we face around the world is the product of our own self-defeating and self-flagellating extreme left media.

More on Palestinian Pyschopathology

2007-08-30T20:07:00.000+03:00

As a follow up to my previous post, Dr Guy Bechor explains the overall maladaptive behavior of the Palestinian national movement. This boils down to one obvious conclusion: The Palestinians don't really want to be independent. If they really wanted a state, they would have been able to have one along time ago, in 1948, 1967 and 2000. Yet, each time when they get close to getting what they say they want, they blow things up in their own faces. Instead of building up the physical, social and financial infrastructure for a future state, they squander all of the world's goodwill (and contributions) towards self-defeating violence. After all, it much easier to blame "the occupation" for all of ones ills than actually take responsibility. One gets the sense that the Palestinians have a pathological love-hate relationship with being occupied, which permits them to perpetually wallow in hatred and victimhood.
Pretty pathetic.

Our Palestinian cousins haven't heard of Darwin

2007-08-29T19:46:00.000+03:00

Today's events in Gaza represent yet another example in the long string of maladaptive behavior of the Palestinian people. Out of their endless hatred of Israel, they are willing to send their children to the Kassam rocket launch sites, in order to retrieve the used launchers. They do this knowing full well that the launchers are targets of the IDF and that they are exposing their children to mortal danger. Even more cynically, they do this intentionally so that Israel will be criticized ( especially by Israel's own leftists) for not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties. It's also great propoganda for internal purposes to show how cruel Israel is.

As usual, ultimately their strategy will backfire and they will continue to be their own greatest enemies.

Are these people worthy of a state?

Halachic Fictions

2007-08-29T07:51:00.000+03:00

Speaking of Christopher Hitchens, here is a news item from Ha'aretz. No, this time I'm not complaining about Ha'aretz, but about the mixing of religion and politics.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/898515.html

This articles essentially explains that in order for us to eat "kosher" fruits and vegetables during the Shmita, or Sabbatical, year coming up, we must "sell" the farm land to a non-Jew, so that the Shmita laws don't apply. (A Jewish owned farm may not be cultivated for the whole year). The Israeli rabbinate holds by this "sale" (which is symbolic and on paper only), although many ultra-orthodox don't, and insist on buying their produce from abroad or from Gaza, which is considered outside of Israel. During Shmita when you go into a restaurant or store you'll see various certificates signed by different rabbis indicating which type of supervision is used for the fruits and veggies.
This is similar to other legal fictions in Halacha, such as selling chametz on pesach to a non-Jew, or transferring loans to the rabbinic court on the Jubilee year to avoid the Biblical imperative of forgiving all loans. Another example is the "Heter Iska", which is the legal loophole permitting payment of interest on loans and investments, circumventing the Biblical proscription of charging interest. This reminds me of the joke about the Orthodox rabbi bragging to the Reform rabbi about how he deals with the problem of smoking among his congregants, by arranging for the sale of their lungs to a non-Jew.
What other religion does such things? We must look pretty damn stupid.
It is very clear that there was (and will continue to be) a progressive development of Halacha over time that was forced upon it by the changes in society, but the rabbis had to create the impression that these changes were consistent with the Torah. Nothing wrong with changes, but let's be honest!

Israeli Self-Flagellation

2007-08-28T08:43:00.000+03:00

One of my favorite news analysis web sites for understanding the Middle East is Dr. Guy Bechor's page. No, you won't find conspiracy theories, scoops, or other nonsense. Just level-headed commentary on the situation, free of political agendas, and based on his expert understanding of Middle Eastern mentality, politics and history.

The original Hebrew articles are more elegantly written, but this English translation of a recent post describes the Israeli tendency towards self-criticism, that often reaches a pathological level. Whereas the Arabs do the reverse, blame outsiders for every misfortune that befalls them, we Israelis collectively blame ourselves for everything. Of course, this stops when it comes to an individual politician admitting error. However, every national issue, from the climate, water, security situation, Arab extremism and terrorism, to road accidents and poverty-- are a result, according to our newspapers and politicians, of incompetence, negligence, malice or other preventable causes.

A measured dose of self-criticism is healthy, if it helps to expose and correct mistakes. But here it is unrestrained and used for political purposes, only results in national depression (and embarrassment in the eyes of the world)

The issue of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier being held hostage by the Palestinians, has been getting emphasis again lately. The media converage has been interminable, not out of sympathy for the family, but more out of the desire to blame ourselves-- for the incompetence of the kidnapping in the first place, to the failure to obtain his release. Guy Bechor has written about this, too. In a nutshell, the possibility and timing of a release has more to do with internal Arab politics than with anything we can do.

SO LETS STOP BEATING OURSELVES UP!

2007-08-27T22:03:00.000+03:00

Me at Shmurat Dan

Tendentious reporting in Ha'aretz

2007-08-27T21:24:00.001+03:00

OK, here is a good example:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/897847.html

This story reports on the near lynching of an Israeli soldier in Jenin and his rescue by Palestinian policeman.

1. The paper claims that there was a gunbattle between police and Islamic Jihad militants who were trying to kidnap him. No other media reported such an event, other than police firing into the air to keep the rioters away while they were escorting the soldier to headquarters.

2. By emphasizing Livni's comments about the PA strengthening, along with the supposed "shootout", the article gives the impression of a supposedly strong "good guy" police defeating "bad guy" militant organizations.

While the Pal police certainly deserve our thanks for saving the soldier, the Ha'aretz article distorts the true and fair grasp of the event: A hapless soldier stumbles into a Palestinian town, inhabited by residents with a bottomless well of hatred toward Israel, is almost lynched, and is rescued by Palestinian police doing their jobs. A close call. If anything, the main lesson of the story is not about the "good guys" getting stronger, but about the limitless hostility among the Palestinians, being promulgated by their media and education, which all but precludes a settlement anytime in the near future.

I assert that this article intentionally attempts to present a falsely optimistic picture to the Israeli public about the true state of affairs, while serving as a basis to pressure the Israeli government for more "gestures" to Abu Mazen.

My First Specimens

2007-08-27T12:56:00.000+03:00

Here are today's specials:

1. Last night on the way to a meeting, I was driving on the Beit Oved highway between Nes Tziona and Rishon. On a particularly dark, unlighted section of the road, I noticed some cars braking. As I passed I noticed two young men, riding bicycles, wearing dark clothing, with no helmets and no reflectors or lights on either the bikes or on their persons, riding on the side of the road (not even the shoulder).

I can only hope and pray that these guys don't make it long enough to have offspring!!

2. Dr Yuli Tamir, currently Israel's education minister and probably one of our most ungifted politicians , recently called on Ehud Barak, the defense minister, to sign a statement guaranteeing that the schools in Sderot are safe for students and that they won't be harmed by Kassam missiles. Otherwise she won't open the school year. Barak's assistant shot back that Mr. Barak would be willing to sign such a statement, only after 1. Yuli Tamir would sign a statement that the schools are safe from violence, 2. The chief minister of police Avi Dichter would sign that there would be no crime, and 3. If transportation Minister Mofaz would sign that the roads are safe and there will be no auto accidents.

Dr Tamir, you win the award this week!

3. Rav Ovadia Yosef used to be a respected halachic authority. But once again religion and politics poison each other, as the old man opened his mouth claiming that soldiers died in the Lebanon war because they didn't pray or put on tefillin. These idiotic comments really make me identify with Christoper Hitchens.

4. In later posts I will be writing extensively about Israel's print and electronic media, who consitently, systematically and maliciously, search and seek out, or invent, and then magnify, false news stories. The outcome of this self-destructive stupidity is to intentionally mislead readers and to use the enemy's psychological warfare against our own public in a breathtakingly irresponsible and maladaptive act.

2007-08-27T12:19:00.000+03:00

The Israeli Darwin Awards

This blog will be my collection of personal experiences and news stories reflecting the precarious nature of human intelligence. I will attempt to make posts at least once a week, giving detailed examples of human stupidity in public life here in Israel. My hope in exposing these examples is to improve the survival of the Jewish species by selecting out the least deserving of our kind.

DrJeff