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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Don't get me wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven Myths of the Palestinian-Israel Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Obama-Bibi Show

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

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

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

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

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

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