Dear Mr. Harel/Ravid,
Re: Ha'aretz story: "Ministers: Israel needs to be more flexible with Hamas over Shalit talks "
As a responsible Israeli citizen who cares for his country, I am writing to protest the publication of this story in Ha'aretz.
With regards to the article, the story gives the basic impression that the consensus within the political and security establishment in Israel is that Israel needs to "give in" to Hamas' demands by releasing more convicted Palestinian terrorists. You know as well as I that the issue of the "price" to be paid to kidnappers, as well as the very act of negotiating itself, is the subject of considerable controversy. It is hotly debated by the public and by security experts. Yet your story, without mentioning who the "sources" are, concludes that there is no debate and that all have agreed that Israel needs to make more concessions. This is factually incorrect, and misleads the public in Israel and English speaking readers abroad. It is also a transparent attempt to "create" the news by creating the impression that the concessions are a done deal.
The extreme left bias of your paper is well known, and with a free press you have the right to write whatever you want. A free and vigorous press is important in a democracy. But responsible journalism requires a separation between editorializing and reporting the news. It would be completely appropriate for your paper to write an editorial column advocating this or that concession to Hamas. But including a leading news story that is so obviously slanted and tendentious is unethical and poor journalism. Furthermore, by doing so your paper acts as a mouthpiece for the enemy to further demoralize the Israeli public and prepare them for the "inevitable" concession. It also harms international efforts to delegitimize and fight terrorist groups.
As to the issue itself: Why is it that that only Israeli ministers "have no illusions of reaching an agreement" unless certain conditions are met? Why is it not the Palestinian terrorist group, that shouldn't "have any illusions" about extorting outrageous concessions from Israel? The negotiating environment is created using psychological pressure, and your paper is being recruited by Hamas to further their cause. How can you allow your paper to do this? I can already predict the numerous articles by supposed "experts" who will appear in your paper in the coming months, explaining why we should release Marwan Barghouti, that he is the Palestinian's natural leader, that he will moderate their positions, that he is just a national hero and not really a murderer, etc. Why does your paper behave in a way that is so damaging to Israel?? Often, when hearing anti-Israel rhetoric from abroad, I encounter the claim that "even Israelis feel this way" based on stories from Haaretz.
The results of this week's shameful exchange with Hizbullah are already apparent: hardening of Hamas' position vis a vis Shalit, threats from Hizbullah and other groups of more kidnappings, scorn on the Arab street, and consolidation of Nasrallah's power in Lebanon.
As to the supposed inviolate ethic in the IDF of "bringing the sons home", applying it to a a deal with terrorists is immoral, against all norms of criminal and international law, and completely contrary to Israel's supreme national interests. This ethic is properly applied to situations where the army itself has to act in order to retrieve the wounded or dead soldiers in the field, or to liberate prisoners. But it is still the army's job to defend the civilians, not the reverse. The idea that an entire country (and its national interests) can be held hostage because a soldier (dead or alive) is in enemy hands is an outrageous distortion of morality and national ideals. Suppose Hizbullah holds an Israeli civilian hostage, say an old lady. Is she worth any less? Or suppose a soldier is being held, and the "inevitable" price being demanded by Hizbullah is withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Would your paper be advocating giving in to such a demand? Would you argue that we should "have no illusions" about the price to be paid? I cannot imagine any other western country behaving in such a fashion. Would the US or Great Britain negotiate the release of convicted Al Qaida criminals? I'll bet they wouldn’t. The fact that we do makes us less moral, not more moral, contrary to PM Olmert's claims. 30 years ago no Israeli would even consider negotiating with a terrorist. The international community respected us for this. The only negotiating was: either surrender or die. Somehow Israel's will to fight has weakened in recent years, and Ha'aretz has taken an active role in the erosion of Israel's national ethic. Recent events have proven, all too clearly, that appeasement only encourages the enemy to demand more and raises his will to fight.
If the two of you care about Israel you should immediately demand a change in Ha'aretz journalistic standards or resign.
I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this letter to the editorial desks of the New York Times, and of a few other English newspapers in the U.S. and the UK, because I think that it is important that readers abroad know that the views expressed in this paper don't represent the "mainstream" view of Israelis. They should also be aware of Ha'aretz's poor journalistic standards.
Sincerely,
Jeff Shames
Rehovot, Israel
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Woe to Israel
Today Israel completed another exchange deal with Hizbullah. This day will go down in history as a day of unprecedented self-inflicted shame and humiliation for the State of Israel.
It is a day when Israeli society and leaders decided to sacrifice supreme national interests in the face of pressure from bereived families and because of political expediency.
Today Israel decided to knowingly and willingly strengthen its enemies politically, militarily and strategically.
Today Israel set a new precedent in absurd exchanges: bodies and body parts for a dispicable criminal convicted in a civilian court of mass murder. By doing so it raised the price that Israel will have to pay for future captives higher than ever. Our enemies now know that they do not even have to give their prisoners alive. All they have to do is conceal their death and let the Israeli media and families do their work to pressure the government to capitulate.
Today is the day that hypocrite Israeli leaders lost any shred of credibility that they had, after declaring repeatedly in the past that they would not release Samir Kuntar.
Today Israel's weakness and currupt spirit is laid bare for all to see. It has made a joke of its own criminal justice system and international law, granting Hizbullah the legitimacy of a state and their terrorists who are held captive by us, the status of POWs and war heros.
Today I fear for the future of this country, which appears to have lost its instinct for collectuve self preservation.
It is a day when Israeli society and leaders decided to sacrifice supreme national interests in the face of pressure from bereived families and because of political expediency.
Today Israel decided to knowingly and willingly strengthen its enemies politically, militarily and strategically.
Today Israel set a new precedent in absurd exchanges: bodies and body parts for a dispicable criminal convicted in a civilian court of mass murder. By doing so it raised the price that Israel will have to pay for future captives higher than ever. Our enemies now know that they do not even have to give their prisoners alive. All they have to do is conceal their death and let the Israeli media and families do their work to pressure the government to capitulate.
Today is the day that hypocrite Israeli leaders lost any shred of credibility that they had, after declaring repeatedly in the past that they would not release Samir Kuntar.
Today Israel's weakness and currupt spirit is laid bare for all to see. It has made a joke of its own criminal justice system and international law, granting Hizbullah the legitimacy of a state and their terrorists who are held captive by us, the status of POWs and war heros.
Today I fear for the future of this country, which appears to have lost its instinct for collectuve self preservation.
Monday, July 7, 2008
The likelihood of the improbable
I can explain how I deal with people's objections regarding the apparent improbabilities of abiogenesis and mutations from simple to complex life forms.
1. Suppose I take a walk and find a green Dentyne wrapper in a specific place on the sidewalk. Now ask, 20 years before, If I were to ask somebody, what is the chance that 20 years from now, there will be a green Dentyne wrapper on this specific place on the sidewalk, on this specific date and time, and somebody named JS will walk by and see it? The answer is, exceedingly low; yet it happenned, because of out of all of the millions of improbable things to occur, some of them will definitely happen.
2. The human mind is wired to be able to grasp magnitudes within a certain range, that occur within our experience. I few inches, a few miles, a few years, a few hundred items, etc. We cannot conceive of things that are exceedingly small or big. Can you picture 93,000,000 miles? A thousand light-years distance? 10 million years? An Angstrom of distance? Most certainly not. Yet they exist and we accept their existence. Similarly we cannot grasp extremely small non-zero improbabilities, over vasts amounts of time and space, and what they mean, except in mathematical models. Our intuition doesn't help here. So one might say that both naturalists and diests believe in things we can't quite grasp. I go with naturalistic because that's "where the money is"-- the approach has led to great progress and achievements.
1. Suppose I take a walk and find a green Dentyne wrapper in a specific place on the sidewalk. Now ask, 20 years before, If I were to ask somebody, what is the chance that 20 years from now, there will be a green Dentyne wrapper on this specific place on the sidewalk, on this specific date and time, and somebody named JS will walk by and see it? The answer is, exceedingly low; yet it happenned, because of out of all of the millions of improbable things to occur, some of them will definitely happen.
2. The human mind is wired to be able to grasp magnitudes within a certain range, that occur within our experience. I few inches, a few miles, a few years, a few hundred items, etc. We cannot conceive of things that are exceedingly small or big. Can you picture 93,000,000 miles? A thousand light-years distance? 10 million years? An Angstrom of distance? Most certainly not. Yet they exist and we accept their existence. Similarly we cannot grasp extremely small non-zero improbabilities, over vasts amounts of time and space, and what they mean, except in mathematical models. Our intuition doesn't help here. So one might say that both naturalists and diests believe in things we can't quite grasp. I go with naturalistic because that's "where the money is"-- the approach has led to great progress and achievements.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Haaretz
As a follow up to my post yesterday, Haaretz today (one day later)reports that a deal is far off.
Other Isreali media have dropped the subject altogether.
All of this further demonstrates the poor professional journalistic standards of Haaretz.
I advise all of my readers to continue writing to Haaretz editors to complain.
Other Isreali media have dropped the subject altogether.
All of this further demonstrates the poor professional journalistic standards of Haaretz.
I advise all of my readers to continue writing to Haaretz editors to complain.
Letter to Ha'aretz (in reference to article reporting supposed deal reached with Hizbullah to free Israeli capives Regev and Goldvasser)
Dear Mr. Stern,
I think that you and your paper should be exercising more editorial responsibility.
Israel newspapers in general, but Haaretz in particular, are guilty of extremely poor editorial and reporting standards, as exemplified in this article. You take some remarks from an undisclosed source, who may be speculating or not in a position to know what is really going to happen, and make it into a headline story "scoop". In this case you also take the words of our arch-enemy and master propagandist Nasrallah, and present them as authoritative and the words of God. By doing so you are knowingly being used by him in his psychological warfare against the Israeli public, the families involved, in order to demoralize Israelis and apply pressure. (Maybe this is what you want, I don't know)
This amounts to tendentious reporting and cynical use of the media, something unbecoming of a major newspaper. The fact that you stipulate by saying "sources say..." does not exempt you from responsibility. I could report "sources say" on just about anything, from an impending Israeli attack on Iran to the coming of the Messiah. How many times in the past 3 years did your paper report on a supposedly impending release of Shalit? Or a cease fire with the Palestinians?
Your web news site is like that of Debka except on the other side of the political spectrum. I have no problem with a paper that has an editorial slant, but there are journalistic professional standards which you don't abide by. When I compare you with American newspapers with which I am very familiar, I cannot imagine them ever publishing a story like this at all, particularly as a lead headline.
I am at the center of the political spectrum, and I cannot help but conclude that your paper is on par with extreme left anti-zionist papers of Europe, whose editorial slant is so extreme that it loses all objectivity and accuracy. The stories in your paper are used by Arabs and other abroad as weapons against us in the war for public opinion. I have no problem with open reporting that tells the truth, but that is not what your newspaper does. This story is typical of that problem.
I think that you and your paper should be exercising more editorial responsibility.
Israel newspapers in general, but Haaretz in particular, are guilty of extremely poor editorial and reporting standards, as exemplified in this article. You take some remarks from an undisclosed source, who may be speculating or not in a position to know what is really going to happen, and make it into a headline story "scoop". In this case you also take the words of our arch-enemy and master propagandist Nasrallah, and present them as authoritative and the words of God. By doing so you are knowingly being used by him in his psychological warfare against the Israeli public, the families involved, in order to demoralize Israelis and apply pressure. (Maybe this is what you want, I don't know)
This amounts to tendentious reporting and cynical use of the media, something unbecoming of a major newspaper. The fact that you stipulate by saying "sources say..." does not exempt you from responsibility. I could report "sources say" on just about anything, from an impending Israeli attack on Iran to the coming of the Messiah. How many times in the past 3 years did your paper report on a supposedly impending release of Shalit? Or a cease fire with the Palestinians?
Your web news site is like that of Debka except on the other side of the political spectrum. I have no problem with a paper that has an editorial slant, but there are journalistic professional standards which you don't abide by. When I compare you with American newspapers with which I am very familiar, I cannot imagine them ever publishing a story like this at all, particularly as a lead headline.
I am at the center of the political spectrum, and I cannot help but conclude that your paper is on par with extreme left anti-zionist papers of Europe, whose editorial slant is so extreme that it loses all objectivity and accuracy. The stories in your paper are used by Arabs and other abroad as weapons against us in the war for public opinion. I have no problem with open reporting that tells the truth, but that is not what your newspaper does. This story is typical of that problem.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Israel's dove and hawks: How can we explain the differences?
I like analyzing issues cognitively. It helps me master and understand things that bother me. I have always been intrigued by a particular question: How can intelligent, educated and experienced Israelis, in their analysis of Israel's predicaments, come to diametrically opposing views and conclusions. Although the right/left divide in Israel and shifted over time and takes various forms, the basic world view and plan for what needs to be done remains the same. These positions can be summarized as follows:
For the left, Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians, at the cost of extensive concessions (giving up land), and this peace is within reach if Israel were to only make the correct moves.
According to the right, peace is currently not achievable with them, even with land concessions, and we need to fight them with toughness, until such time that they give up on trying to throw us into the see, then make peace with them on our terms.
I think that for many people, political views are a function of their temperament and emotions. They have a basic belief about themselves and the world around them, in terms of trust and human nature. Subsequesntly their attitude towards a particular issue will be colored by this. The right/left divide encompasses a wide range of issues beyond the Arab Israeli conflict, and people tend to align themselves among fairly consistent lines. This collection of positions is a function of their basic world view.
In cognitive behavioral science, we know that in many cases, emotions and reactions follow thoughts, and not vice versa. In reaction to a particular event, a person will have particular automatic thoughts about the situation, which subsequently evokes certain emotions-- such as anger, disgust, sadness or fear. These automatic thoughts are dependent on the person's upbringing, experience and personality. They aren't necessarily based on a well thought out, objective analysis, but rather a reflex perception of the situation.
Another related factor is the person's system of values. These values reflect a person's basic priorities in terms of importance. Issues such as life, family, nation, health, spirituality and economic well-being are important to all of us, but we all weigh them differently.
Beyond emotions and values, what are the basic assumptions and thoughts inherent in the rightist or leftist positions? I will try to sort them out in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1. The nature of human beings.
The leftist believes that most humans are inherently good, if only given the proper opportunity. When they behave badly it is for a reason (bad things happened to them), and if this bad thing is corrected, these people will be good.
The rightist believes that there are alot of bad people out there, who need no excuses for their evil. This people will be bad no matter what you do for them.
In the case of the Palestinians, the leftist says that terrorism is only a result of good people doing bad things because of Palestinians poverty and displacement, which needs to be corrected. According to the rightist, among the Palestinians are lots of evil people who will continue to be evil whatever we give them, and therefore must be fought.
2. Good Will
The right believes that when facing evil, gestures and concessions are interpreted as weakness and only encourage bad people to do more evil things. Thus, in their lexicon, concessions are appeasement.
The left would say that the evil is not really evil but some good people doing bad things, and that concessions are needed in order to get them to stop doing (or supporting) bad things.
The implications of this debate are clearly reflected in our conflict with the Palestinians, when a concession is a "gesture" or "appeasement" depending on your point of view.
3. The future
I heard a telephone call on a talk show yesterday, in which the caller was exhorting the Israeli government to talk to Hamas to stop the rockets. When asked what to talk about, she answered that we need to offer more land. When the talk show host pointed out that we in fact handed over Gaza to them in its entirety, and all we got back were rockets and terror, and that Hamas openly states that their goal is to get rid of us entirely, she answered that she can't imagine that her children and grandchildren are going to have to go on fighting for many years. I think that this gets to the crux of the matter-- the leftist, emotionally and cognitively, finds it too painful to acknowledge that there might be no end in sight to the conflict. This goes against his basic belief in human goodness. He therefore pretends that it is within his power to solve the problem. It is a form of denial from fatigue.
The right states that there will only be a solution to the conflict when the evil people are defeated, however long this takes. Concessions at this point may bring very short term quiet, but will not solve the problem and only exacerbate the problem later. If it takes another generation, so be it. (Interestingly, it is this long term thinking that governs many Palestinians, who are willing to suffer tremendously in the past, present and the forseeable future, for some far-off goal, rather than take what they can get now.)
For the left, Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians, at the cost of extensive concessions (giving up land), and this peace is within reach if Israel were to only make the correct moves.
According to the right, peace is currently not achievable with them, even with land concessions, and we need to fight them with toughness, until such time that they give up on trying to throw us into the see, then make peace with them on our terms.
I think that for many people, political views are a function of their temperament and emotions. They have a basic belief about themselves and the world around them, in terms of trust and human nature. Subsequesntly their attitude towards a particular issue will be colored by this. The right/left divide encompasses a wide range of issues beyond the Arab Israeli conflict, and people tend to align themselves among fairly consistent lines. This collection of positions is a function of their basic world view.
In cognitive behavioral science, we know that in many cases, emotions and reactions follow thoughts, and not vice versa. In reaction to a particular event, a person will have particular automatic thoughts about the situation, which subsequently evokes certain emotions-- such as anger, disgust, sadness or fear. These automatic thoughts are dependent on the person's upbringing, experience and personality. They aren't necessarily based on a well thought out, objective analysis, but rather a reflex perception of the situation.
Another related factor is the person's system of values. These values reflect a person's basic priorities in terms of importance. Issues such as life, family, nation, health, spirituality and economic well-being are important to all of us, but we all weigh them differently.
Beyond emotions and values, what are the basic assumptions and thoughts inherent in the rightist or leftist positions? I will try to sort them out in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1. The nature of human beings.
The leftist believes that most humans are inherently good, if only given the proper opportunity. When they behave badly it is for a reason (bad things happened to them), and if this bad thing is corrected, these people will be good.
The rightist believes that there are alot of bad people out there, who need no excuses for their evil. This people will be bad no matter what you do for them.
In the case of the Palestinians, the leftist says that terrorism is only a result of good people doing bad things because of Palestinians poverty and displacement, which needs to be corrected. According to the rightist, among the Palestinians are lots of evil people who will continue to be evil whatever we give them, and therefore must be fought.
2. Good Will
The right believes that when facing evil, gestures and concessions are interpreted as weakness and only encourage bad people to do more evil things. Thus, in their lexicon, concessions are appeasement.
The left would say that the evil is not really evil but some good people doing bad things, and that concessions are needed in order to get them to stop doing (or supporting) bad things.
The implications of this debate are clearly reflected in our conflict with the Palestinians, when a concession is a "gesture" or "appeasement" depending on your point of view.
3. The future
I heard a telephone call on a talk show yesterday, in which the caller was exhorting the Israeli government to talk to Hamas to stop the rockets. When asked what to talk about, she answered that we need to offer more land. When the talk show host pointed out that we in fact handed over Gaza to them in its entirety, and all we got back were rockets and terror, and that Hamas openly states that their goal is to get rid of us entirely, she answered that she can't imagine that her children and grandchildren are going to have to go on fighting for many years. I think that this gets to the crux of the matter-- the leftist, emotionally and cognitively, finds it too painful to acknowledge that there might be no end in sight to the conflict. This goes against his basic belief in human goodness. He therefore pretends that it is within his power to solve the problem. It is a form of denial from fatigue.
The right states that there will only be a solution to the conflict when the evil people are defeated, however long this takes. Concessions at this point may bring very short term quiet, but will not solve the problem and only exacerbate the problem later. If it takes another generation, so be it. (Interestingly, it is this long term thinking that governs many Palestinians, who are willing to suffer tremendously in the past, present and the forseeable future, for some far-off goal, rather than take what they can get now.)
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hamas in Gaza-Good or Bad?
For almost 2 years, in the wake of Israel's disengagement, the Gaza strip has been ruled by Hamas, the fundamentalist Islamic organization, considered a terrorist group by most of the international community. This is commonly seen as a victory for extreme Islam, with Iran and Al Qaida at the forefront. Israel now has a client state of Iran on its southern border.
Certainly Israel and the west would prefer a moderate, pro-western regime bordering Israel which could negotiate peace with Israel and be a member of "moderate" Arab or Muslim countries. This has not happened, and, prior to Hamas' coup, it was also not the case. While nominally the Fatah-ruled PA was sovereign, on the ground the PA had very little control, in the face of armed resistance from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a host of other radical groups.
Notwithstanding political and military maneuvering, Israel had very little influence on the internal political developments among the Palestinians.
Like most situations in real life, the issue is complex, and each of the various scenarios entails threats and opportunities. Rarely in the international arena does one see an outcome that is purely "good" or "bad". With regards to Gaza, what are the pros and cons of Hamas rule in Gaza, in relation to the alternative scenarios? Let us start with the negatives:
1. Hamas ideology is uncompromisingly anti-Israel and anti-semitic, and it will not ever recognize Israel nor make permanent peace with it. This is unquestioningly a big "bad" on this side of the scale.
2. Hamas, with the support of Iran, Hizbullah and other extremist states, will continue to build up its military capability. It is gradually acquiring the abilities of Hizbullah. Although it may take some time, it is conceivable that in the future they might succeed in acquiring tanks, long range missiles and warplanes. This strengthening is occuring primarily via smuggling through the Egyptian border, both above ground and through tunnels.
3. They pose a immediate strategic threat, not in conventional military terms, but in their ability to harm civilians and civilian life by firing short range rockets at will. This is similar to Hizbullah's capability, although somewhat lower in intensity at this time.
4. Any and all "gains" made by Hamas, real or imagined, (in terms of terrorist attacks, abilities, continued rule) will have the psychological impact of being seen as a victory for extremist forces. This perception forestalls any tendency to surrender or make peace. Furthermore it helps gain support among the population, who see these forces as the "winning" side, as opposed to the moderate "losers".
All of this points to a very undesirable situation. At the same time it has to be viewed in contrast to the realistic alternatives, and not those that we fantasize about fashioning with our own hands. Since Fatah/PA is a weak organization (and has been for some time, even in the peak of Arafat's power), it is extremely unlikely that they would be able to govern Gaza effectively and to our liking. This was in fact the situation prior to the Hamas takeover. In this scenario, you essentialy have a "failed state" like Somalia, Sudan, pre-war Afghanistan, etc. In relation to this situation, what can be seen as some of the "positives" of Hamas rule?
1. Being the sole and strong rulers in Gaza, Hamas de facto becomes an address, diplomatically and militarily. Thus any institution of the government or armed forces becomes a ligitimate target. This avoids the untenable situation of having to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Palestinians (in the eyes of the world) when fighting them. More than any, that scenario forces Israel to fight with its hands tied.
2. Hamas is unquestionably in control of the security situation in Gaza and is able to control, almost entirely, attacks on Israel. Thus, when dealing with them, and attempting to manage the conflict, we have someone to deal with who can actually control the situation (and are to some degree subject to deterrance). This is like Syria or Egypt before the peace treaty. In contrast, with a powerless PA in charge, there was nobody to deal with, and worse, the extremist organization were always out to prove that the PA was not in control. We would have has security chaos, as in Southern Lebanon during the civil war. This is an undesirable and unstable situation for Israel.
3. The entire international community has backed an embargo and blockade of Gaza, in the face of terrorist activity. This would never have been possible if the PA where in charge.
4. The PA/Fatah, while not a fundamentalist Islamic organization, is still a bitter enemy and also propagates anti-semitic and anti-Israel sentiment among Palestinians and actively fights us. Yet, hiding under the veil of international legitimacy, they are successfully able to employ the "good cop/bad cop" technique with us. They are in fact doing this in the West bank-- in the form of demands for unilateral gestures and concessions and small scale terrorist attacks, while constantly threatening that Hamas will take over if we don't give in. This problem tied our hands
How do we weigh these factors against one another? While in the long term we all hope for comprehensive peace, it is important to remember that in the short term the Palestinian problem can only be managed, not solved. The fringes of the left and right forget this. The ways of managing it are varied, with advantages and disadvantages to each approach. In the long term nobody knows precisely how the current scenario will play out. It seems likely that Hamas will strenghthen itself in Gaza and become a bigger security challenge, among others that Israel faces now and have faced in the past. In the context of history, each one of these threats have been managed, not neutralized, and so will the current one in Gaza. Israel has been successful at managing threats, but much less so preventing them (with a few notable exceptions such as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility). This failure to anticipate and prevent threats requires examination, in the context of Israel's military, financial and diplomatic assets and limitations.
In an ideal world, a major power would intervene in Gaza by completely occupying and rehabilitating the area, until such time that the people living there could govern themselves, Marshall-plan style. But the geo-political situation makes this unlikely to happen. There is nobody both willing and capable for the job. Certainly not Israel. Therefore, in the current reality we are forced to deal among less desirable alternatives, over which we have very little influence. Imagine that we enter Gaza and remove Hamas from power. Than what? They would continue to fire rockets, under the guise of Fatah.
We should do whatever we can militarily to stop the rocket fire, but we should carefully consider the goal of the removal of Hamas.
Certainly Israel and the west would prefer a moderate, pro-western regime bordering Israel which could negotiate peace with Israel and be a member of "moderate" Arab or Muslim countries. This has not happened, and, prior to Hamas' coup, it was also not the case. While nominally the Fatah-ruled PA was sovereign, on the ground the PA had very little control, in the face of armed resistance from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a host of other radical groups.
Notwithstanding political and military maneuvering, Israel had very little influence on the internal political developments among the Palestinians.
Like most situations in real life, the issue is complex, and each of the various scenarios entails threats and opportunities. Rarely in the international arena does one see an outcome that is purely "good" or "bad". With regards to Gaza, what are the pros and cons of Hamas rule in Gaza, in relation to the alternative scenarios? Let us start with the negatives:
1. Hamas ideology is uncompromisingly anti-Israel and anti-semitic, and it will not ever recognize Israel nor make permanent peace with it. This is unquestioningly a big "bad" on this side of the scale.
2. Hamas, with the support of Iran, Hizbullah and other extremist states, will continue to build up its military capability. It is gradually acquiring the abilities of Hizbullah. Although it may take some time, it is conceivable that in the future they might succeed in acquiring tanks, long range missiles and warplanes. This strengthening is occuring primarily via smuggling through the Egyptian border, both above ground and through tunnels.
3. They pose a immediate strategic threat, not in conventional military terms, but in their ability to harm civilians and civilian life by firing short range rockets at will. This is similar to Hizbullah's capability, although somewhat lower in intensity at this time.
4. Any and all "gains" made by Hamas, real or imagined, (in terms of terrorist attacks, abilities, continued rule) will have the psychological impact of being seen as a victory for extremist forces. This perception forestalls any tendency to surrender or make peace. Furthermore it helps gain support among the population, who see these forces as the "winning" side, as opposed to the moderate "losers".
All of this points to a very undesirable situation. At the same time it has to be viewed in contrast to the realistic alternatives, and not those that we fantasize about fashioning with our own hands. Since Fatah/PA is a weak organization (and has been for some time, even in the peak of Arafat's power), it is extremely unlikely that they would be able to govern Gaza effectively and to our liking. This was in fact the situation prior to the Hamas takeover. In this scenario, you essentialy have a "failed state" like Somalia, Sudan, pre-war Afghanistan, etc. In relation to this situation, what can be seen as some of the "positives" of Hamas rule?
1. Being the sole and strong rulers in Gaza, Hamas de facto becomes an address, diplomatically and militarily. Thus any institution of the government or armed forces becomes a ligitimate target. This avoids the untenable situation of having to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Palestinians (in the eyes of the world) when fighting them. More than any, that scenario forces Israel to fight with its hands tied.
2. Hamas is unquestionably in control of the security situation in Gaza and is able to control, almost entirely, attacks on Israel. Thus, when dealing with them, and attempting to manage the conflict, we have someone to deal with who can actually control the situation (and are to some degree subject to deterrance). This is like Syria or Egypt before the peace treaty. In contrast, with a powerless PA in charge, there was nobody to deal with, and worse, the extremist organization were always out to prove that the PA was not in control. We would have has security chaos, as in Southern Lebanon during the civil war. This is an undesirable and unstable situation for Israel.
3. The entire international community has backed an embargo and blockade of Gaza, in the face of terrorist activity. This would never have been possible if the PA where in charge.
4. The PA/Fatah, while not a fundamentalist Islamic organization, is still a bitter enemy and also propagates anti-semitic and anti-Israel sentiment among Palestinians and actively fights us. Yet, hiding under the veil of international legitimacy, they are successfully able to employ the "good cop/bad cop" technique with us. They are in fact doing this in the West bank-- in the form of demands for unilateral gestures and concessions and small scale terrorist attacks, while constantly threatening that Hamas will take over if we don't give in. This problem tied our hands
How do we weigh these factors against one another? While in the long term we all hope for comprehensive peace, it is important to remember that in the short term the Palestinian problem can only be managed, not solved. The fringes of the left and right forget this. The ways of managing it are varied, with advantages and disadvantages to each approach. In the long term nobody knows precisely how the current scenario will play out. It seems likely that Hamas will strenghthen itself in Gaza and become a bigger security challenge, among others that Israel faces now and have faced in the past. In the context of history, each one of these threats have been managed, not neutralized, and so will the current one in Gaza. Israel has been successful at managing threats, but much less so preventing them (with a few notable exceptions such as the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility). This failure to anticipate and prevent threats requires examination, in the context of Israel's military, financial and diplomatic assets and limitations.
In an ideal world, a major power would intervene in Gaza by completely occupying and rehabilitating the area, until such time that the people living there could govern themselves, Marshall-plan style. But the geo-political situation makes this unlikely to happen. There is nobody both willing and capable for the job. Certainly not Israel. Therefore, in the current reality we are forced to deal among less desirable alternatives, over which we have very little influence. Imagine that we enter Gaza and remove Hamas from power. Than what? They would continue to fire rockets, under the guise of Fatah.
We should do whatever we can militarily to stop the rocket fire, but we should carefully consider the goal of the removal of Hamas.
Monday, March 3, 2008
'It's a Holocaust' and Palestinian Muslim Psychosis
One of Israel's less bright ministers Matan Vilnai (a former reserves general), commented last week that Hamas's policy of firing rockets and terrorism are bringing a "shoah" upon the Palestinian people. The correct intepretation of the word 'shoah' is "catastrophe" or "disaster", and this is what the minister obviously meant. However, we all know that it is the commonly used term for the Nazi holocaust. The English language press translated the word this way, and, predictably, the Arabs seized upon this theme, exhorting the Arab masses, the international community, and the UN to stop the new Israeli "holocaust" and extermination of the Palestinians. They were referring particularly to the recent military operations in Gaza, and in general to Israel's existence for the past 60 years.
Now we are all familiar with the unending stream of Palestinian propoganda and lies which are used to recruit international condemnation of Israel, and this is not a new story. It is not the first time that they have called the Israelis 'Nazis' and it won't be the last. But we don't need an Israeli minister, with the assistance of Israel's English language presss, providing them with convenient excuses.
Speaking of excuses: Have you read about Hamas's version of events in Gaza? It was a heroic 'victory' for the Palestinians and a 'humiliating defeat' of the IDF. The same Hamas news report lamenting the extermination and destruction of the Palestinian people goes on the celebrate the exit of the IDF forces (a planned end of a limited operation) as a victory. We all know that Israel and the IDF are planning a series of unspecified actions to stop the rockets, and the most recent operation was limited to specific military goals, including intelligence gathering and preparations for other operations. So here's the absurdity: If we're killing the terrorists, its a massacre/holocaust/extermination (even its just one terrorist). If we leave and stop killing them, it's their heroic victory and our defeat!! This is very similar to the delusional thinking of a schizophrenic.
This bespeaks two aspects of Palestinian (and more generally, fundamentalist Islam) psychopathology, to which I have referred in previous posts:
1. Palestinian lives, both civilian and militants, are worth very little in their society. They are used as fodder for the struggle, and no matter that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 are 'sacrificed' for some insane or hopeless cause. This is part of the Muslim emphasis on martyrdom and the well known afterlife that awaits Muslim males. So no matter how bitter their actual defeat, they 'won'. If they win they win, and if they lose they win. What a great way to run a society!! It's hard to know how many Palestinians actually believe this, but the fact that their leaders use these lies to perpetuate the conflict indicates that it works. Just like Hizbullah's "divine victory" over Israel in Lebanon. I suspect that the 1967 war set the victory bar too high. Anything short of a stunning and humiliating defeat over the Arabs is a victory for them.
2. Issue #1, and the aformentioned 'holocaust' issue reflects a broader psychic illness in Palestinian (and in many Muslim) societies: a refusal to recognise reality and accept a sober appraisal of their situation. There are many reasons for this--political, cultural and religious. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily emotional and psychological. It is not an overstatement to say that the Palestinian society suffers from national psychosis. Psychotics are capable of doing alot of damage to others as well as themselves. Maybe there's not much consolation in the fact that in the end most psychotics who are not treated self-destruct. This indeed has been the tragic story of the Palestinian Arabs- of one disaster to the next, fed by a pathological misinterpretation and prediction of events. This is also what is happening to their imploding national movement. It seems that the American and Israelis are more enthusiastic supporters of a Palestinian state than the Palestinians themselves. In the meantime there is no indication that the Palestinians are sobering up- in the contrary, their psychosis seems to be getting worse, encouraged by the ever-psychotic Iranians. Lets hope that when they collapse they don't bring down too many of us with them.
Now we are all familiar with the unending stream of Palestinian propoganda and lies which are used to recruit international condemnation of Israel, and this is not a new story. It is not the first time that they have called the Israelis 'Nazis' and it won't be the last. But we don't need an Israeli minister, with the assistance of Israel's English language presss, providing them with convenient excuses.
Speaking of excuses: Have you read about Hamas's version of events in Gaza? It was a heroic 'victory' for the Palestinians and a 'humiliating defeat' of the IDF. The same Hamas news report lamenting the extermination and destruction of the Palestinian people goes on the celebrate the exit of the IDF forces (a planned end of a limited operation) as a victory. We all know that Israel and the IDF are planning a series of unspecified actions to stop the rockets, and the most recent operation was limited to specific military goals, including intelligence gathering and preparations for other operations. So here's the absurdity: If we're killing the terrorists, its a massacre/holocaust/extermination (even its just one terrorist). If we leave and stop killing them, it's their heroic victory and our defeat!! This is very similar to the delusional thinking of a schizophrenic.
This bespeaks two aspects of Palestinian (and more generally, fundamentalist Islam) psychopathology, to which I have referred in previous posts:
1. Palestinian lives, both civilian and militants, are worth very little in their society. They are used as fodder for the struggle, and no matter that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 are 'sacrificed' for some insane or hopeless cause. This is part of the Muslim emphasis on martyrdom and the well known afterlife that awaits Muslim males. So no matter how bitter their actual defeat, they 'won'. If they win they win, and if they lose they win. What a great way to run a society!! It's hard to know how many Palestinians actually believe this, but the fact that their leaders use these lies to perpetuate the conflict indicates that it works. Just like Hizbullah's "divine victory" over Israel in Lebanon. I suspect that the 1967 war set the victory bar too high. Anything short of a stunning and humiliating defeat over the Arabs is a victory for them.
2. Issue #1, and the aformentioned 'holocaust' issue reflects a broader psychic illness in Palestinian (and in many Muslim) societies: a refusal to recognise reality and accept a sober appraisal of their situation. There are many reasons for this--political, cultural and religious. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It is primarily emotional and psychological. It is not an overstatement to say that the Palestinian society suffers from national psychosis. Psychotics are capable of doing alot of damage to others as well as themselves. Maybe there's not much consolation in the fact that in the end most psychotics who are not treated self-destruct. This indeed has been the tragic story of the Palestinian Arabs- of one disaster to the next, fed by a pathological misinterpretation and prediction of events. This is also what is happening to their imploding national movement. It seems that the American and Israelis are more enthusiastic supporters of a Palestinian state than the Palestinians themselves. In the meantime there is no indication that the Palestinians are sobering up- in the contrary, their psychosis seems to be getting worse, encouraged by the ever-psychotic Iranians. Lets hope that when they collapse they don't bring down too many of us with them.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Israel's Supreme Court and the "Cycle of Violence"
In an unprecedented criticism by a high government official on Israel's High Court, Professor Daniel Friedman boldly (Justice Minister) notes that the court has become a politicized power center allied with Meretz (a far left party) and the Arabs. When one of these parties becomes frustrated with the democratic parliamentary process in dealing with its agenda, it can appeal to "Bagatz" in order to bypass the government. Not a week goes by without the court ordering the government to do or not do something. The court's judges even lobby by releasing statements and meeting with public officials and journalists in order to influence the political process. This is without parallel in any democratic country. Shame on Israel. We wish Professor Friedman success in his attempts to reform the court.
Lately, we are again hearing statements by some Israeli and European officials regarding the need to stop the "cycle of violence" between Israel and the Palestinians. These statements result from the same "original sin", that error in thinking, that brought about our dismal supreme court behavior: That we are in control of, and subsequently at fault for everything that happens around us. The Arabs hate us? Its our fault. Hamas in power and they're attacking us? Its our fault. The Palestinians' misery? Yep, it's us again. In other words, we're adopting the narrative of our enemy. This is not unlike Europe's appeasement of Hitler before the war.
What does a "cycle of violence" mean? It implies that two sides, unable to control themselves, perpetrate violence against each other, bringing about inevitable reactions. It is a subtle attempt to put Israel on par with the Palestinians, and in fact places most of the blame on Israel, since we are the stronger side and thus in control. But let's look at the situation and see why this is a fallacy.
The Palestinians are divided into 2 main camps: one that is nationalist and strives for a state, and the other which is Islamic and pre-nationalist. The former movement has not renounced violence as a means to achieving its goals, and continues to engage in terrorist attacks. The latter effectively controls the Palestinian public and political atmosphere. This Islamic stream (along with their brethren in other Arab countries) has an ideology and policy of "resistance", i.e. military aggression, violence and terrorism, to achieve its goal of elimination of the Jewish State. In other words, its violence is in response to Israel's existence. So if we can call our existence as "violence" than indeed this is a cycle of violence: we exist and they attack us. I wonder how we can get out of that "cycle". We know what their solution is. It goes without saying that Israel's military reactions are defensive operations, made necessary by Palestinian aggression, whose sole purpose is to defend its citizens. Needless to say, Israel is able to control its actions, unlike the Palestinians who themselves admit that they are unable to control their militants (unless, of course, we give in to their demands).
Occasionally, one can attribute a localized "flareup" to a cycle of action and response. But to attempt to characterize the overall violence as a "cycle of violence", is tendentious and an outright lie. It is an intentional misrepresentation of the conflict whose purpose is to absolve the Palestinians of their responsibilities and to place the burden on Israel to break the "cycle of violence".
Lately, we are again hearing statements by some Israeli and European officials regarding the need to stop the "cycle of violence" between Israel and the Palestinians. These statements result from the same "original sin", that error in thinking, that brought about our dismal supreme court behavior: That we are in control of, and subsequently at fault for everything that happens around us. The Arabs hate us? Its our fault. Hamas in power and they're attacking us? Its our fault. The Palestinians' misery? Yep, it's us again. In other words, we're adopting the narrative of our enemy. This is not unlike Europe's appeasement of Hitler before the war.
What does a "cycle of violence" mean? It implies that two sides, unable to control themselves, perpetrate violence against each other, bringing about inevitable reactions. It is a subtle attempt to put Israel on par with the Palestinians, and in fact places most of the blame on Israel, since we are the stronger side and thus in control. But let's look at the situation and see why this is a fallacy.
The Palestinians are divided into 2 main camps: one that is nationalist and strives for a state, and the other which is Islamic and pre-nationalist. The former movement has not renounced violence as a means to achieving its goals, and continues to engage in terrorist attacks. The latter effectively controls the Palestinian public and political atmosphere. This Islamic stream (along with their brethren in other Arab countries) has an ideology and policy of "resistance", i.e. military aggression, violence and terrorism, to achieve its goal of elimination of the Jewish State. In other words, its violence is in response to Israel's existence. So if we can call our existence as "violence" than indeed this is a cycle of violence: we exist and they attack us. I wonder how we can get out of that "cycle". We know what their solution is. It goes without saying that Israel's military reactions are defensive operations, made necessary by Palestinian aggression, whose sole purpose is to defend its citizens. Needless to say, Israel is able to control its actions, unlike the Palestinians who themselves admit that they are unable to control their militants (unless, of course, we give in to their demands).
Occasionally, one can attribute a localized "flareup" to a cycle of action and response. But to attempt to characterize the overall violence as a "cycle of violence", is tendentious and an outright lie. It is an intentional misrepresentation of the conflict whose purpose is to absolve the Palestinians of their responsibilities and to place the burden on Israel to break the "cycle of violence".
Monday, February 18, 2008
Religion and extremism
A recent pronouncement by leading rabbis from the national religious movement calls for exempting religious soldiers in the IDF from participating in army training classes being taught by female soldiers. A careful reading of their p'sak halacha reveals the intellectual dishonesty and the unfortunate trend of Heredization in the national religious movement.
The founding fathers of the national religious would have never dreamt of making such a pronouncement. This movement was dedicated to integrating halacha and the state, and to encouraging religious people to participate in broader national life. In the past 15 years, we have seen a gradual but consistent slide to stricter halachic rulings in various areas, such as kashrut, mixed youth groups and army practices. It is as if they have to prove to the cheredim that they are just as "kosher", but in doing so, they are leading their public into increasing isolation from Israeli society. It also causes "moderates" in the camp to ignore the rabbis altogether (like me).
An analysis of the rabbi's call reveals their halachic thinking. You begin with a point of view, based on your world view, ethics or politics. The position may or may not have merit. (My opinion is that there is logic in their concerns regarding ethical norms in the army). Then you begin to quote biblical verses, taken totally out of context, to support the view and give it halachic validity. This is very similar to how many rulings are derived in the talmud. Note that the rabbis do not quote any classic halachic sources that address the issue, either because there aren't any, or worse, they are not applicable. I wouldn't have a problem with this except for one glaring inconsistency : It is used in one direction only-- in the direction of strictness. If the rabbis truly had the courage to take Jewish law into their own hands, they would use their authority to eliminate all kinds of laws that aren't relevant in our day and relieve significant hardship (extra days of niddah, shimita, and aguna for example). Instead, they simultaneuously adhere to the talmudic rulings (as though they are immutable), while piling on strict rulings based on their own logic and world view and give it the authority of the Torah.
The rabbis think that they are being far-sighted but in fact the opposite is true-- they are further alienating Judaism and religion from the general population and bring disgrace to the national religious movement.
The founding fathers of the national religious would have never dreamt of making such a pronouncement. This movement was dedicated to integrating halacha and the state, and to encouraging religious people to participate in broader national life. In the past 15 years, we have seen a gradual but consistent slide to stricter halachic rulings in various areas, such as kashrut, mixed youth groups and army practices. It is as if they have to prove to the cheredim that they are just as "kosher", but in doing so, they are leading their public into increasing isolation from Israeli society. It also causes "moderates" in the camp to ignore the rabbis altogether (like me).
An analysis of the rabbi's call reveals their halachic thinking. You begin with a point of view, based on your world view, ethics or politics. The position may or may not have merit. (My opinion is that there is logic in their concerns regarding ethical norms in the army). Then you begin to quote biblical verses, taken totally out of context, to support the view and give it halachic validity. This is very similar to how many rulings are derived in the talmud. Note that the rabbis do not quote any classic halachic sources that address the issue, either because there aren't any, or worse, they are not applicable. I wouldn't have a problem with this except for one glaring inconsistency : It is used in one direction only-- in the direction of strictness. If the rabbis truly had the courage to take Jewish law into their own hands, they would use their authority to eliminate all kinds of laws that aren't relevant in our day and relieve significant hardship (extra days of niddah, shimita, and aguna for example). Instead, they simultaneuously adhere to the talmudic rulings (as though they are immutable), while piling on strict rulings based on their own logic and world view and give it the authority of the Torah.
The rabbis think that they are being far-sighted but in fact the opposite is true-- they are further alienating Judaism and religion from the general population and bring disgrace to the national religious movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)