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.
Monday, May 13, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
