This post is unrelated to anything, just bantering.
This is my second wireless network printer. The setup was fairly easy, that is, easy if you DON'T follow the "quick setup guide" which is ridiculously confusing. After everything was working, I was having the occasional problem that almost every home network printer user knows about: the printer periodically goes off line. You could turn the printer off and on, or re-install the printer software, and it would go online, but the problem would still recur. I had this problem with the last printer, too, but at that point I was unaware that the solution is so blindingly simple. It is also stunning that the guidance that comes with these printers does not give you this information as standard instructions. And, evidently, almost every IT professional knows about this.
The solution?
Use a static IP address for the printer.
The technical explanation:
Usually, by default, your home network is set up to automatically assign IP addresses to different devices on the network-- like computers, tablets, and network-enabled printers. This address is a unique identifier for all of the devices so that the router can communicate with each one separately. These "dynamic" addresses are assigned and reassigned periodically, as the devices come on and off the network. This process is called DHCP. The problem begins if the IP address for the printer changes, and is different than the one which was assigned when the printer software was installed on the computer. For whatever reason the printer software is "dumb" and the computer cannot track the printer at its new, changed IP address. When this happens the computer cannot see the printer and therefore thinks its disconnected. Restarting the printer or re-installing the software on the computer allows them to find each other again but the same problem will inevitably recur.
To prevent this from happening, you can use a static (permanent) IP address for the printer rather than a dynamic one. There are several ways of doing this, but the simplest way to accomplish this is the set it from the printer itself. Depending on your make and model this is done from the front panel of the machine or from the printer web interface which you access from a browser. You have to pick an IP outside the range of the DHCP which you router uses. You don't need to make any changes to the router, but you may need to check the router settings (via the web interface) to see what your DHCP range is. Make sure that the subnet (the first 3 parts of the IP address) are the same as the IPs assigned by DHCP, but the last part (after the 3rd dot) can be any number above the range up to 254. You enter this IP into the printer settings, and set "static" as the method for IP assignment. In Brother printers, this is found under the "network-->TCP/IP" menu.
After doing this, restart the printer and the computers, and you should be good to go.
The printer will remain online, because the computer always knows where to find the printer.
Why don't manufacturers include this basic information in the instructions? I am sure the countless hours of frustration and technical support calls are made because of offline printers.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Sunday, July 13, 2014
An Open Letter to the People of Gaza (and to their supporters)
What has already not been said about our conflict? We accuse you of terrorism and wanting to throw us into the sea, and you have endless grievances against the Zionist "occupation" and the blockade of Gaza.
In 2005, Israel left the Gaza strip, down to the very last soldier and settler. True, this did not include the West Bank, but this was a perfect experiment for us to see what your intentions were and what direction your society and leadership would take you when you were free of "occupation" . Would it be towards economic prosperity, development, trade and peace? As you know, until 2005, Gaza was never "free", so for the first time you could have shown us, and the whole world, what you were capable of when left to yourselves. No settlers or settlements, no soldiers, no roadblocks, no Israeli military law. Sadly, you chose an extremist, incompetent, and corrupt leadership that holds you ransom to its militant and religious agenda. You turned towards terrorism. Rather than building infrastructure, businesses, agriculture and open trade, under Hamas leadership you spent your resources on tunnels and rockets (which have no military value other than for terrorizing civilians).
Which "occupation" are you blaming now? The only occupation of Gaza now is Hamas.
As for the Israeli blockade, there would obviously be no need for it if you weren't attempting to smuggle weaponry which threatens Israeli citizens. You also have a border with Egypt with whom you can pursue your own agreements. The minute that you would commit to disarming, the boycott would be lifted and Israel would have no reason to attack Gaza.
In Gaza there are about 1.2 million people who are considered "refugees" by the UN. Yet Gaza is under Palestinian rule, so why are they being kept as refugees in territory ruled by their own nation? Can you imagine Jews escaping persecution coming to Israel and being kept permanently in refugee camps in Israel? Why have you not settled and absorbed them? Why do they, and their descendants, remain refugees?
The answer is glaringly obvious: they are intentionally being kept that way by your leaders and by other Arab countries, enabled by a misguided UN, to be used as political weapons against Israel, with the false promise that one day they will "go back" to their homes in Israel. They and their suffering are being used as pawns in a cruel political game.
So, the only conclusion that an Israel citizen could make from your behavior, is that you have an unwavering long-term commitment to the destruction of Israel. You have done nothing to dispel this impression.
As such you cannot expect us to commit suicide, by either agreeing to your absurd demands or allowing you to defeat us militarily.
This means that any complaints about your continued suffering, be it from "occupation", blockades, or and other grievances, should be directed at your own leadership--and your own dysfunctional society, which goes from one disaster to the next.
Ask yourselves the following questions:
1. Since Hamas has taken over Gaza, are your lives better or worse than they were before?
2. Do you honestly believe the twisted logic of your government's propaganda that Hamas rockets are "defending" Palestinians? Do you feel defended? Do you see any contradiction between your cries of Israeli attacks against defenseless civilians, and your claim that Hamas is defending you with their rockets?
3. Does the cost in Palestinian lives and property justify the emotional satisfaction that you get by firing rockets towards Israel?
4. Finally, are you prepared for endless suffering and hardship, holding out for some unseen "victory" over Israel, rather than settling for something less then everything you want?
Peace.
In 2005, Israel left the Gaza strip, down to the very last soldier and settler. True, this did not include the West Bank, but this was a perfect experiment for us to see what your intentions were and what direction your society and leadership would take you when you were free of "occupation" . Would it be towards economic prosperity, development, trade and peace? As you know, until 2005, Gaza was never "free", so for the first time you could have shown us, and the whole world, what you were capable of when left to yourselves. No settlers or settlements, no soldiers, no roadblocks, no Israeli military law. Sadly, you chose an extremist, incompetent, and corrupt leadership that holds you ransom to its militant and religious agenda. You turned towards terrorism. Rather than building infrastructure, businesses, agriculture and open trade, under Hamas leadership you spent your resources on tunnels and rockets (which have no military value other than for terrorizing civilians).
Which "occupation" are you blaming now? The only occupation of Gaza now is Hamas.
As for the Israeli blockade, there would obviously be no need for it if you weren't attempting to smuggle weaponry which threatens Israeli citizens. You also have a border with Egypt with whom you can pursue your own agreements. The minute that you would commit to disarming, the boycott would be lifted and Israel would have no reason to attack Gaza.
In Gaza there are about 1.2 million people who are considered "refugees" by the UN. Yet Gaza is under Palestinian rule, so why are they being kept as refugees in territory ruled by their own nation? Can you imagine Jews escaping persecution coming to Israel and being kept permanently in refugee camps in Israel? Why have you not settled and absorbed them? Why do they, and their descendants, remain refugees?
The answer is glaringly obvious: they are intentionally being kept that way by your leaders and by other Arab countries, enabled by a misguided UN, to be used as political weapons against Israel, with the false promise that one day they will "go back" to their homes in Israel. They and their suffering are being used as pawns in a cruel political game.
So, the only conclusion that an Israel citizen could make from your behavior, is that you have an unwavering long-term commitment to the destruction of Israel. You have done nothing to dispel this impression.
As such you cannot expect us to commit suicide, by either agreeing to your absurd demands or allowing you to defeat us militarily.
This means that any complaints about your continued suffering, be it from "occupation", blockades, or and other grievances, should be directed at your own leadership--and your own dysfunctional society, which goes from one disaster to the next.
Ask yourselves the following questions:
1. Since Hamas has taken over Gaza, are your lives better or worse than they were before?
2. Do you honestly believe the twisted logic of your government's propaganda that Hamas rockets are "defending" Palestinians? Do you feel defended? Do you see any contradiction between your cries of Israeli attacks against defenseless civilians, and your claim that Hamas is defending you with their rockets?
3. Does the cost in Palestinian lives and property justify the emotional satisfaction that you get by firing rockets towards Israel?
4. Finally, are you prepared for endless suffering and hardship, holding out for some unseen "victory" over Israel, rather than settling for something less then everything you want?
Peace.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Apple and Steve Jobs
I miss Steve Jobs.
Of course I didn't know him personally, and I never had any personal connection with Apple. But the world lost something with Jobs' death. His charisma. His marketing and business brilliance. And, most of all, his innovation.
Apple is still making good products. But so is Samsung, Amazon and Asus. But are they making GREAT products? The kind of cutting edge, innovative and beautiful products that make people say "wow" every time they see them?
Since Jobs died, Apple has continued to release new products, like the Iphone 5 and the Ipad 3 and 4. They are nice. But they are incremental improvements on previous models-- a little faster, a little lighter, and little brighter. And this is what all of the companies are doing. And this is the rut that Apple previously got itself into in the years that Jobs was in exile. Trying to leapfrog devices that other companies put out.
Think how different that is from what was happening until 2011. Every year or 2, apple was coming out with a REVOLUTIONARY product, that had the competition catching up for years. Forget the first Ipad, which blew the competition out of the water. (It is still better than most of the competition out there). Think of Ipad 2. It wasn't just a little faster or lighter. It was completely redesigned, adding multiple new groundbreaking features (like Facetime) and announced in parallel with wonderful Ipad applications like Garageband. Part of the genius was pairing the hardware with great software and content and how the two worked together. There is nothing that comes even close to Itunes U, for example.
But now, it seems that Apple is treading water. They come out with new models once a year, but nothing really groundbreaking. I hear they're coming out with an Ipad 5, a little lighter and thinner than Ipad 4. Great. But its not going to make people run out and buy them. A few more years of this and they will lose their edge.
Of course I didn't know him personally, and I never had any personal connection with Apple. But the world lost something with Jobs' death. His charisma. His marketing and business brilliance. And, most of all, his innovation.
Apple is still making good products. But so is Samsung, Amazon and Asus. But are they making GREAT products? The kind of cutting edge, innovative and beautiful products that make people say "wow" every time they see them?
Since Jobs died, Apple has continued to release new products, like the Iphone 5 and the Ipad 3 and 4. They are nice. But they are incremental improvements on previous models-- a little faster, a little lighter, and little brighter. And this is what all of the companies are doing. And this is the rut that Apple previously got itself into in the years that Jobs was in exile. Trying to leapfrog devices that other companies put out.
Think how different that is from what was happening until 2011. Every year or 2, apple was coming out with a REVOLUTIONARY product, that had the competition catching up for years. Forget the first Ipad, which blew the competition out of the water. (It is still better than most of the competition out there). Think of Ipad 2. It wasn't just a little faster or lighter. It was completely redesigned, adding multiple new groundbreaking features (like Facetime) and announced in parallel with wonderful Ipad applications like Garageband. Part of the genius was pairing the hardware with great software and content and how the two worked together. There is nothing that comes even close to Itunes U, for example.
But now, it seems that Apple is treading water. They come out with new models once a year, but nothing really groundbreaking. I hear they're coming out with an Ipad 5, a little lighter and thinner than Ipad 4. Great. But its not going to make people run out and buy them. A few more years of this and they will lose their edge.
Monday, May 13, 2013
So I have switched to Android, and I am sold
Well, I switched but not entirely. I still have my IPad which I love and use a lot. And my trusty IPod Touch still sits on my nightstand, in its dock. But I recently bought an Android phone (Sony Xperia Ray) and I absolutely love it.
Physically, the phone itself is great. Personally, I think its silly to walk around with a large brick in your hand that can't easily be carried in a pocket or belt case. So all of those phones with 4 or 5 inch screens make no sense to me. Nowadays, who doesn't have access to a regular PC anyway? I still want a smartphone, but web access is only for occasional on-the-go use, and a smaller screen does not bother me. The Ray's 3.3" screen is just right. Perfect for email, typing short messages, running Waze, and occasional news check on the web. I have an old horizontal belt case that holds it perfectly. I got a silicone protector off of Ebay for $2.
Even though the android version is not the latest (it runs 2.3.4), it is every bit as intuitive and easy to use as IOS. In fact, the standard Android back and menu button makes learning to use any app easier than with IOS. And, most of all, the fact that almost every aspect of the phone is customizable (either with settings or with separate apps), without the need to "root" ("jailbreak"), makes it a joy to use. Want to change the dialer or keyboard? No problem. I love the swiping gestures for typing. It makes the small keyboard screen easy to use. Screen widgets are integrated into Android and give a tremendous advantage over IOS devices. Want a quick shortcut for turning off your Bluetooth, or a Google search? How about turning on a wi-fi hotspot? Live weather and clock widgets are also included, and many more can be downloaded. Just by tapping an icon on your home screen, these functions become far more convenient than having to navigate through layers of settings menus. Just about any function or setting can set up as a widget or shortcut. For the hackers out there, "rooting" Android provides yet more flexibility (although it voids the phone warranty), and gives you the ability to install entirely new firmwares, which are freely available. There is a slight disadvantage in that because there are different variations of android available for hundreds of different phones, there is occasional incompatibility. But the sheer breadth of available software more than compensates for this shortcoming.
The integration with Google services is seamless, so its easy to sync contacts, calendars and email. Importing old contacts from my old Nokia posed little difficulty. Using the Play store (android market) is a pleasure--its available from any PC (no Itunes!), and any app you request is instantly downloaded to your device.
Everything just works. Of course, nobody can beat Apple on the variety and quality of media in the Itunes Store, and admittedly this is a big selling point. But my phone is still primarily a phone, with occasional use for other functions. I don't buy albums or movies to watch on my phone. I do love podcasts, and there are lots of podcast apps (many free) in the Android market.
Finally, my Android phone was much less expensive than an IPhone. Intense competition and innovation keeps the prices down. I bought my unlocked Sony from an independent dealer for about 1100 NIS, whereas an IPhone would cost 3 times that.
Physically, the phone itself is great. Personally, I think its silly to walk around with a large brick in your hand that can't easily be carried in a pocket or belt case. So all of those phones with 4 or 5 inch screens make no sense to me. Nowadays, who doesn't have access to a regular PC anyway? I still want a smartphone, but web access is only for occasional on-the-go use, and a smaller screen does not bother me. The Ray's 3.3" screen is just right. Perfect for email, typing short messages, running Waze, and occasional news check on the web. I have an old horizontal belt case that holds it perfectly. I got a silicone protector off of Ebay for $2.
Even though the android version is not the latest (it runs 2.3.4), it is every bit as intuitive and easy to use as IOS. In fact, the standard Android back and menu button makes learning to use any app easier than with IOS. And, most of all, the fact that almost every aspect of the phone is customizable (either with settings or with separate apps), without the need to "root" ("jailbreak"), makes it a joy to use. Want to change the dialer or keyboard? No problem. I love the swiping gestures for typing. It makes the small keyboard screen easy to use. Screen widgets are integrated into Android and give a tremendous advantage over IOS devices. Want a quick shortcut for turning off your Bluetooth, or a Google search? How about turning on a wi-fi hotspot? Live weather and clock widgets are also included, and many more can be downloaded. Just by tapping an icon on your home screen, these functions become far more convenient than having to navigate through layers of settings menus. Just about any function or setting can set up as a widget or shortcut. For the hackers out there, "rooting" Android provides yet more flexibility (although it voids the phone warranty), and gives you the ability to install entirely new firmwares, which are freely available. There is a slight disadvantage in that because there are different variations of android available for hundreds of different phones, there is occasional incompatibility. But the sheer breadth of available software more than compensates for this shortcoming.
The integration with Google services is seamless, so its easy to sync contacts, calendars and email. Importing old contacts from my old Nokia posed little difficulty. Using the Play store (android market) is a pleasure--its available from any PC (no Itunes!), and any app you request is instantly downloaded to your device.
Everything just works. Of course, nobody can beat Apple on the variety and quality of media in the Itunes Store, and admittedly this is a big selling point. But my phone is still primarily a phone, with occasional use for other functions. I don't buy albums or movies to watch on my phone. I do love podcasts, and there are lots of podcast apps (many free) in the Android market.
Finally, my Android phone was much less expensive than an IPhone. Intense competition and innovation keeps the prices down. I bought my unlocked Sony from an independent dealer for about 1100 NIS, whereas an IPhone would cost 3 times that.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
DebkaFile and Haaretz- for the morons out there
Periodically, out of boredom or curiosity, I still visit both the Debkafile and Haaretz websites.
They remain on my bookmark list because years ago I used to take them seriously. DEBKAfile claims to have inside scoops on everything about Israel, security, terrorism and the Middle East. Sometimes their analyses seems intelligent, with a conservative, security oriented slant. Other times their articles really seem over the edge, like this story. Are well really stupid enough to believe that the US president would be visiting Israel if there was a serious credible threat of a chemical attack at the airport? Sometimes they just make shit up, apparently due to a Caroline Glick-like paranoia and hatred of the left and Obama.
In many ways, DEBKAfile is the Jewish equivalent of the right wing Christian WorldNet Daily. They openly promote radical right wing conspiracy theories and fear-mongering. If their analyses and predictions were true, Al-Qeeda would have taken over the world years ago, and we Jews (and Christians) would all be kneeling down to Allah in front of our Salafi Muslim masters.
On the other side of the spectrum, there is the English Haaretz website. The English and Hebrew pages for Haaretz are quite different. The Hebrew site , although decidedly left wing and whiny about anything related to the settlements and the Palestinians, represents an authentic Zionist and dovish perspective. In Israeli it is read by a small but elite group, especially for its excellent finance section. The English site, on the other hand, has a anti-Israel, post-Zionist slant. If you didn't know you were reading Haaretz, often you would guess that you were looking at a leftist anti-Israel European newspaper. An editorial slant is acceptable. However, the choice of news stories of leading headlines, as well as mis-translations, change the tone of a story entirely. This has been written about and documented by several observers. There is an unfortunate parallel to the doom-and gloom fantasies of DEBKAfile. If we were to believe Haaretz's scoops and analyses, Israel long ago would have either become a shunned South Africa-like country, living in poverty due to sanctions and boycott, or a Jewish State living in bliss next to a peaceful, progressive and democratic Arab state of Palestine.
Both websites suffer from the same pseudo-intellectual and delusional thinking.
They remain on my bookmark list because years ago I used to take them seriously. DEBKAfile claims to have inside scoops on everything about Israel, security, terrorism and the Middle East. Sometimes their analyses seems intelligent, with a conservative, security oriented slant. Other times their articles really seem over the edge, like this story. Are well really stupid enough to believe that the US president would be visiting Israel if there was a serious credible threat of a chemical attack at the airport? Sometimes they just make shit up, apparently due to a Caroline Glick-like paranoia and hatred of the left and Obama.
In many ways, DEBKAfile is the Jewish equivalent of the right wing Christian WorldNet Daily. They openly promote radical right wing conspiracy theories and fear-mongering. If their analyses and predictions were true, Al-Qeeda would have taken over the world years ago, and we Jews (and Christians) would all be kneeling down to Allah in front of our Salafi Muslim masters.
On the other side of the spectrum, there is the English Haaretz website. The English and Hebrew pages for Haaretz are quite different. The Hebrew site , although decidedly left wing and whiny about anything related to the settlements and the Palestinians, represents an authentic Zionist and dovish perspective. In Israeli it is read by a small but elite group, especially for its excellent finance section. The English site, on the other hand, has a anti-Israel, post-Zionist slant. If you didn't know you were reading Haaretz, often you would guess that you were looking at a leftist anti-Israel European newspaper. An editorial slant is acceptable. However, the choice of news stories of leading headlines, as well as mis-translations, change the tone of a story entirely. This has been written about and documented by several observers. There is an unfortunate parallel to the doom-and gloom fantasies of DEBKAfile. If we were to believe Haaretz's scoops and analyses, Israel long ago would have either become a shunned South Africa-like country, living in poverty due to sanctions and boycott, or a Jewish State living in bliss next to a peaceful, progressive and democratic Arab state of Palestine.
Both websites suffer from the same pseudo-intellectual and delusional thinking.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Egypt-- Go to Hell
A Message from Israel to our Cousins of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt:
Your country has so many problems-- overcrowding, corruption, poverty, lawlessness, lack of human rights. And, you have your own form of home grown terrorism in the Sinai.
So why focus your thoughts and attention on us? We have a terrorist problem, and its none of your business. Take care of your own problems, and stop trying to distract your people from them by focusing on the "crimes" of the "Zionists". We have nothing against you. We have a peace treaty, we hold none of your territory, and we don't attack you (even though attacks on us come from your territory).
So leave us alone. And if you don't control the extremists in your own territory and prevent them from attacking us, we'll act in the Sinai too.
If you don't like it you can go to Hell.
Your country has so many problems-- overcrowding, corruption, poverty, lawlessness, lack of human rights. And, you have your own form of home grown terrorism in the Sinai.
So why focus your thoughts and attention on us? We have a terrorist problem, and its none of your business. Take care of your own problems, and stop trying to distract your people from them by focusing on the "crimes" of the "Zionists". We have nothing against you. We have a peace treaty, we hold none of your territory, and we don't attack you (even though attacks on us come from your territory).
So leave us alone. And if you don't control the extremists in your own territory and prevent them from attacking us, we'll act in the Sinai too.
If you don't like it you can go to Hell.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Some thoughts on Windows 8
I've being working on Windows 8 on my notebook computer for about a week.
The bottom line: The marriage between a desktop interface and the new graphic interface is unsuccessful.
The new GUI, with its large live tiles and mouse/swiping gestures, is great for a tablet touch screen, but seems to have no advantage whatsoever on a desktop. Desktop OS's have advanced tremendously over the years, giving users many new capabilities including multitasking, mutliple re-sizing windows, shortcuts and other tools to help productivity. The Metro GI is quite simply a regression. It is a necessary compromise for a smaller touch screen of a tablet, but for a full size computer you simply have nothing to do with it. The "live" tiles are just a gimmick, and not worth the awkward compromises which make getting down to real work much slower and more difficult. On the desktop if you really want something "live" just install one of the many widgets available. To be honest, I spend 99% of my time working from the desktop. The other 1% when I go back to the new user interface, I find that I am asking myself, "what am I doing here?". Furthermore, I installed one the free Windows-7 type start menus (Classic Shell), in order to bypass the new interface. The "apps" in the Windows store consist of programs that are the equivalent of widgets that already exist for the desktop environment.
In the course of a week I have discovered a few quirky things, some of which have to do with the interface, and others are just oversight. A few examples:
1. Getting to the "full" control panel is a pain. It does not show up on the dumbed-down, over-simplified "settings" charm on the home screen, but does from the desktop. I finally made myself a shortcut tile on the home screen. The "PC Settings" screen from the new interface is completely useless.
2. Microsoft has been pushing Skydrive as a default place to store your files, and they include a Skydrive app in the home screen. Yet, Microsoft forgot to tell you that you need to install the Skydrive desktop program to make it work! Otherwise you have no way of actually storing files on Skydrive. This was particularly strange since I had it installed on my Windows 7 system, which I upgraded to Windows 8, but somehow the program did not get carried over.
3. Security settings were altered, without letting me know. When I emailed myself Powerpoint files, I got an non-informative error message that there was a problem with the file. Powerpoint then offered to repair the file, which did not work. After a few frustrating hours I discovered that Windows and Office tag the files as suspicious, and don't let you open them unless you unblock them, via "trust" settings in Office. At least the error message should have told me this!
4. The Metro interfaced Internet Explorer is, again, good for a tablet, but for the desktop is completely awkward. No folders, favorites or toolbars. Yes, you get full screen, but so what? The same is true for the dumbed-down mail and calendar apps. They are a regression from all of the feature rich programs that we have gotten used to. It is a throwback to the days of MSDOS based programs.
Basically, I plan on using my Windows 8 like Windows 7, and ignoring the new interface.
I'm not sure what Microsoft had in mind with Windows 8.
The bottom line: The marriage between a desktop interface and the new graphic interface is unsuccessful.
The new GUI, with its large live tiles and mouse/swiping gestures, is great for a tablet touch screen, but seems to have no advantage whatsoever on a desktop. Desktop OS's have advanced tremendously over the years, giving users many new capabilities including multitasking, mutliple re-sizing windows, shortcuts and other tools to help productivity. The Metro GI is quite simply a regression. It is a necessary compromise for a smaller touch screen of a tablet, but for a full size computer you simply have nothing to do with it. The "live" tiles are just a gimmick, and not worth the awkward compromises which make getting down to real work much slower and more difficult. On the desktop if you really want something "live" just install one of the many widgets available. To be honest, I spend 99% of my time working from the desktop. The other 1% when I go back to the new user interface, I find that I am asking myself, "what am I doing here?". Furthermore, I installed one the free Windows-7 type start menus (Classic Shell), in order to bypass the new interface. The "apps" in the Windows store consist of programs that are the equivalent of widgets that already exist for the desktop environment.
In the course of a week I have discovered a few quirky things, some of which have to do with the interface, and others are just oversight. A few examples:
1. Getting to the "full" control panel is a pain. It does not show up on the dumbed-down, over-simplified "settings" charm on the home screen, but does from the desktop. I finally made myself a shortcut tile on the home screen. The "PC Settings" screen from the new interface is completely useless.
2. Microsoft has been pushing Skydrive as a default place to store your files, and they include a Skydrive app in the home screen. Yet, Microsoft forgot to tell you that you need to install the Skydrive desktop program to make it work! Otherwise you have no way of actually storing files on Skydrive. This was particularly strange since I had it installed on my Windows 7 system, which I upgraded to Windows 8, but somehow the program did not get carried over.
3. Security settings were altered, without letting me know. When I emailed myself Powerpoint files, I got an non-informative error message that there was a problem with the file. Powerpoint then offered to repair the file, which did not work. After a few frustrating hours I discovered that Windows and Office tag the files as suspicious, and don't let you open them unless you unblock them, via "trust" settings in Office. At least the error message should have told me this!
4. The Metro interfaced Internet Explorer is, again, good for a tablet, but for the desktop is completely awkward. No folders, favorites or toolbars. Yes, you get full screen, but so what? The same is true for the dumbed-down mail and calendar apps. They are a regression from all of the feature rich programs that we have gotten used to. It is a throwback to the days of MSDOS based programs.
Basically, I plan on using my Windows 8 like Windows 7, and ignoring the new interface.
I'm not sure what Microsoft had in mind with Windows 8.
Monday, November 5, 2012
An Open Letter to the Turkish People
The Israeli people are friends of the Turkish people. There are many Israelis of Turkish origin, who maintain a link between our peoples. Our businessmen continue to make deals with your businessmen. We have respect for the Turkish culture and history, and, up until a few years ago, we visited your country in droves.
In contrast, your government headed by PM Erdogan is conducting a disastrous foreign policy. A few years ago your Foreign Minister proudly boasted of his "zero problems with neighbors" strategy. Now, a few years later, you have problems with everybody. Not only are relations with Israel at a low point (due to your government's bottomless stupidity and Erdogan's stubborn contempt for Israel), but you are in conflict with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and the Kurds. Every day Erdogan blows off more steam at Israel, making baseless accusations and hollow threats.
However, your government's attempt to portray itself as the leader of the Muslim world, by sacrificing its relations with Israel, has backfired. It was easily predictable, too. Because when you decide to cozy up with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Assad and other assorted dictators, it's hard to be a democracy. Then, you have your show trials of Israeli military officials involved in the Marmara affair. These trials will be worthy of an American television court program.
Perhaps Erdogan's strategy of distancing himself from the West (and Israel) seemed like a sensible short term strategy to gain favor with Iran and the Arabs, and increase trade. But now you are paying the price. Even your military is suffering technological losses due to its cutoff from the Israeli military industries. Erdogan should reconsider his strategy, and realize that if Turkey wishes to maintain a democracy, it has no choice but to remain close with its natural allies--democracies-- of which Israel is the only one in the Middle East.
In contrast, your government headed by PM Erdogan is conducting a disastrous foreign policy. A few years ago your Foreign Minister proudly boasted of his "zero problems with neighbors" strategy. Now, a few years later, you have problems with everybody. Not only are relations with Israel at a low point (due to your government's bottomless stupidity and Erdogan's stubborn contempt for Israel), but you are in conflict with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and the Kurds. Every day Erdogan blows off more steam at Israel, making baseless accusations and hollow threats.
However, your government's attempt to portray itself as the leader of the Muslim world, by sacrificing its relations with Israel, has backfired. It was easily predictable, too. Because when you decide to cozy up with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Assad and other assorted dictators, it's hard to be a democracy. Then, you have your show trials of Israeli military officials involved in the Marmara affair. These trials will be worthy of an American television court program.
Perhaps Erdogan's strategy of distancing himself from the West (and Israel) seemed like a sensible short term strategy to gain favor with Iran and the Arabs, and increase trade. But now you are paying the price. Even your military is suffering technological losses due to its cutoff from the Israeli military industries. Erdogan should reconsider his strategy, and realize that if Turkey wishes to maintain a democracy, it has no choice but to remain close with its natural allies--democracies-- of which Israel is the only one in the Middle East.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Muslim Inferiority Complex
I think much of the Muslim rioters' recent behavior and protest of the Muhommed flick can be explained by well known psychological phenomena.
I recently saw an Arab commentator in the news referring to the fact that Muslims are "touchy" when it comes to their prophet. That's a bit of an understatement, but it is revealing in terms of the Muslim emotional structure and makeup.
When you are strong and confident in your beliefs, you aren't shaken easily. Other's insults or challenges are met with disdain, disgust, and are perhaps refuted. The Jews deal with this all of the time. They will publish a rebuttal, or complain to their congressman, etc. This is true not only the the liberal USA but with Jews around the world. I can't recall ever seeing a "jewish riot" because somebody insulted their religious beliefs. However, this was not always so. Both Judaism and Christianity went through phases in which they committed violence in the name of religious belief. The bible is full of such exhortations. Yet we got past that (althought the Christians did so much later). Only when you are yourself ambivalent or unsure about something, when somebody pricks that sensitive area, you become defensive and angry. If Muslims themselves were confident and comfortable with who Muhammed really was, they would not react in this way.
Looking at the Muslims is like looking in the mirror at what we were thousands of years ago. A violent, jealous and insecure people who still aspire to convert the rest of the world to the one true religion. Yet when they look at us, and we reflect back to them what they really are, they become "offended", angry and violent. Its a reaction to the cognitive dissonance regarding the status of Islam in the world today.
At the same time the Muslim's hypocricy screams to the heavens. Arab country's daily newspapers and television are filled with inciting and hateful images regarding Jews and Christians, yet when a little scorn comes their way from Western countries, they become "insulted", hysterical and violent (despite their characterization of Islam as a religion of peace and love...)
Perhaps it will take a few hundred more years of social progress in the Arab and Muslim world, when they, too, will stop becoming violent over "insult" and symbols. A drawing of Mohammed isn't worth a single human life.
I recently saw an Arab commentator in the news referring to the fact that Muslims are "touchy" when it comes to their prophet. That's a bit of an understatement, but it is revealing in terms of the Muslim emotional structure and makeup.
When you are strong and confident in your beliefs, you aren't shaken easily. Other's insults or challenges are met with disdain, disgust, and are perhaps refuted. The Jews deal with this all of the time. They will publish a rebuttal, or complain to their congressman, etc. This is true not only the the liberal USA but with Jews around the world. I can't recall ever seeing a "jewish riot" because somebody insulted their religious beliefs. However, this was not always so. Both Judaism and Christianity went through phases in which they committed violence in the name of religious belief. The bible is full of such exhortations. Yet we got past that (althought the Christians did so much later). Only when you are yourself ambivalent or unsure about something, when somebody pricks that sensitive area, you become defensive and angry. If Muslims themselves were confident and comfortable with who Muhammed really was, they would not react in this way.
Looking at the Muslims is like looking in the mirror at what we were thousands of years ago. A violent, jealous and insecure people who still aspire to convert the rest of the world to the one true religion. Yet when they look at us, and we reflect back to them what they really are, they become "offended", angry and violent. Its a reaction to the cognitive dissonance regarding the status of Islam in the world today.
At the same time the Muslim's hypocricy screams to the heavens. Arab country's daily newspapers and television are filled with inciting and hateful images regarding Jews and Christians, yet when a little scorn comes their way from Western countries, they become "insulted", hysterical and violent (despite their characterization of Islam as a religion of peace and love...)
Perhaps it will take a few hundred more years of social progress in the Arab and Muslim world, when they, too, will stop becoming violent over "insult" and symbols. A drawing of Mohammed isn't worth a single human life.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Turkish Criticism of Israel or Anti-semitism?
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.
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.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Tom Friedman and the "Arab Spring"
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.
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.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
An Open Letter to the Parents of Cpl. Gilad Shalit
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Ipad Mania
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.
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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Another Lop-Sided Prisoner Exchange on the Way
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.
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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
An Open Letter to the World from Israel (WARNING-ADULT LANGUAGE)
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.
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.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Things I Do With My Ipod Touch
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.
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.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Straw Man Arguments of the Israeli Left
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.
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.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The "Truth" about "Settlements"
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.
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.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Inkjet Printer Ripoff
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.
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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Bibi got it right
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)