Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

America

The Value of Birthright?

‍‍יד טבת תשסט - Jan 10th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

I actually do think that Birthright has had a lot of positive consequences. While I am not aware of any studies on the topic, I do believe that the increase in North American aliyah is, at least somewhat, a result of Birthright. Many aspects of the program, however, remain unexamined. These include the value of such a massive investment of Jewish communal funds, and the marginal return on this incredible expense (costing the Israeli taxpayer, as well).

Talking:Loud::Saying Nothing raises a lot of these questions, and suggests how these vast sums of money might be better directed. Unfortunately, I do not see anything changing anytime soon, because Talking Loud’s proposal would, in effect, leave the diasporic Jewish organizations and leaders, community-less.

Oy Gevalt, It’s Israel’s Fault

‍‍כו חשון תשסט - Nov 24th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

Condoleezza Rice has apparently understood what has been clear well before her latest whirlwind tour of the Middle East. Namely, that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal by the end of the year is not possible.

However, Rice does not focus on the real issues preventing peace. She has found yet another way to blame Israel, saying “it is really largely because of the political situation in Israel.”

Rice cannot possibly believe that a conflict that has lasted for decades could be solved within a few short months if the upcoming Israeli elections were not an issue. Maybe what she really means is that Israeli democracy is the real obstacle?

A Positive French Influence?

‍‍כו חשון תשסט - Nov 23rd, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

In Israel’s early years, its ties to France was one of the better relationships Israel had with the western world. Throughout the 1950s France was Israel’s primary arms supplier, and was party to the early stages of the Kadesh Campaign in 1956. All that changed in 1967 under Charles de Gaulle, whose administration reversed course and criticized Israel for its actions in the Six Day War, and its presence over the Green Line (as have subsequent French administrations). A few years after the war, France also began selling arms to Arab states, strengthening its relationship with Israel’s enemies.

After 1967 France has feigned “even-handedness,” claiming it would not support either side in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nevertheless, France continued to devlop close ties with the Arab world, most notably its strong relationship with Iraq, which ended with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in 1991.

Elected President in May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy appears to have changed France’s attitude towards Israel somewhat. Calling Israel a “dear and steadfast friend”, he has often made statements reminiscent of American politicians running for national office, marking a clear departure from France’s official stance on Israel over the past 40 years. He has promised “never [to] jeopardize Israel’s safety,” and “always [to] be at Israel’s side when its security and its existence are threatened.”

Recent statements, both by Sarkzoy and by France’s Foreign Minister, regarding Obama’s foreign policy appear to signify a real change in French foreign policy on issues relating to the Middle East. Last month Sarkozy, in a closed forum, called Obama’s stance on Iran “utterly immature” and made up of “formulations empty of all content.” It is unclear how this view matches his intentions to persuade the incoming American administration “to continue the current policy on Iran,” considered the ambiguity, at best, of this policy. Nevertheless, the mere fact that a senior European leader is not in line with the international worship of Barack Obama, daring to criticize his foreign policy, from the right no less, leaves some room for hope.

Today, France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, voiced additional criticism of Obama’s stated intentions, in dealing with Iran. Kouchner is a founder of Doctors Without Borders, supported Sarkozy’s rival, Ségolène Royal, in the 2007 elections, and is a former member of France’s socialist party (his membership was revoked for accepting his current post). Kouchner expressed his concern about Obama’s plan to hold direct talks with Iran, warning “against any form of dialogue that would jeopardise the unity not of the Western side but of the whole of the P5, that is the five (permanent U.N.) Security Council members plus Germany.” Kouchner added that France has “negotiated [with Iran] at great length. People came to France, we sent people to Iran, we met them and unfortunately this dialogue produced nothing.”

Perhaps France (or at least its government), is truly adapting to the realities of the world. One can only hope that Europe will cease acting as a doormat in the face of those who wish to end Western Civilization with their version of a murderous crusade.

Rahm Emanuel and Israel 3

‍‍יב חשון תשסט - Nov 10th, 2008
by LB.
2 comments

I’ve already expressed my concerns with Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel for White House Chief of Staff. Shmuel Rosner confirms them:

Emanuel might be even more problematic for Israel because of his Israeli background. He was “problematic” in the past – some Israeli officials with which I spoke do not remember him fondly (others do) and think of him as a condescending, know-it-all, aggressive, pushy.

In referring to a letter Emanuel wrote last year to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, complaining about Israel’s attitude towards Sudanese refugees, Rosner characterizes Emanuel as “Know it all – pushy – and also very wrong.”

As I’ve already said, unless Emanuel packs his bags and moves to Israel (which is his right, nay, his duty), he has no right to tell Israel what to do. We’ve already been down this path, where a pushy American causes Israel to make harmful moves. Be worried. Be very, very worried.

Yiddish AND Hebrew

‍‍ט חשון תשסט - Nov 7th, 2008
by LB.
2 comments

Ynet has an interesting article on the revival of the Yiddish language. Ynet focuses on the alleged dichotomy between Hebrew and Yiddish. Yet, one should not need to choose between the two, as a professor quoted in the article says, “Jewish literacy requires both Yiddish and Hebrew.”

However, saying that “Yiddish is the ancestral tongue of most American Jews” is misleading, and it implies that is the only linguistic heritage of most American Jews. Yes, Yiddish was the lingua franca of most Asheknazi Jews for a long time, but Hebrew is the language of the Jewish people, and it always has been. Unfortunately, for much of our history, Hebrew was relegated to minimal use, primarily in prayer and study. However, Judaism is not a European invention, and long before Yiddish Jews ever set foot in Europe, our forefathers were speaking Hebrew.

Even so, Jews spent centuries in Europe, and developed a culture of their own. Yiddish was a big part of that, in literature, theater, and in daily life. Rememberance of the past has always been a significant theme in Judaism, from the commandment to remember Amalek, to the modern-day obligation never to forget the Holocaust.

Even in Israel, there is a Yiddish revivalism movement, which would seem contradictory to early modern Zionism’s rejection of this “diaspora language.” Hebrew is well established enough today in Israel, and Yiddish does not present a danger to the real Jewish language, nor does it represent a movement promoting a return to the diaspora. Remembering our entire heritage is important, and it does not, in any way, reject the return to the Jewish sovereignty in Israel after thousands of years. נישט אזוי?

Will America “Advise” Israel Again? I Hope Not

‍‍ח חשון תשסט - Nov 6th, 2008
by LB.
3 comments

Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

Rahm, precisely because he’s a lover of Israel, will not have much patience with Israeli excuse-making, so when the next Prime Minister tells President Obama that as much as he’d love to, he can’t dismantle the Neve Manyak settlement outpost, or whichever outpost needs dismantling, because of a) domestic politics; b) security concerns, or c) the Bible, Rahm will call out such nonsense, and it will be very hard for right-wing Israelis to come back and accuse him of being a self-hating Jew. This is not to say that he’s unaware of Palestinian dysfunction, or Iranian extremism, but that he has a good grasp of some of Israel’s foibles as well.

This is precisely the problem with U.S.-Israel relationship. America gives Israel money, and it return it expects to basically control Israeli policy issues. My views on American aid to Israel are already known – this Gordian knot must be cut by ending American aid, and the uneven relationship that follows, so that a true alliance can be forged.

In any case, the U.S., like any Jew who has decided to cast in his lot with a country other than Israel, has no right to “call out” any “nonsense” on the part of the Israeli government. What is, and is not, nonsense in Israel is for the Israeli public to decide. Any decision on outpost-dismantling, settlement evacuation or the construction of new towns anywhere is simply beyond the purview of the United States Government. Israel does not have to give anyone any reason for enacting policy as it sees fit.

I’m very happy Goldberg has faith in the next White House Chief of Staff’s ability to “grasp of some of Israel’s foibles.” Wonderful. Israel’s foibles (which are not what Goldberg thinks they are) are not for America to judge or challenge. The American view of what should or should not happen in the Middle East has, time and time again, caused much more harm than good.

The U.S. has enough problems of its own. As the Talmud says, “קשוט עצמך ואחר קשוט אחרים,” which loosely translated, means, “Judge yourself and only then judge others.”

Rahm Emanuel – Not Another Livni?

‍‍ז חשון תשסט - Nov 5th, 2008
by LB.
3 comments

Congressman Rahm Emanuel has accepted Obama’s offer to serve as the next White House Chief of Staff. One can only hope that he lives up to his heritage, and doesn’t turn out to be like the last child of an Irgun member to wield power, and attempts to remain true to the ideals for which his father fought.

UPDATE: “In an email to NBC News, Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg denies the reporting that Emanuel has accepted the chief of staff job.” Nevertheless, it still seems likely that he will accept the job. “Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel has, as expected, accepted the job as chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama, according to informed Democratic sources.”

UPDATE 2: I shouldn’t be holding my breath. Oh, I’m not.

The Rise and Downfall of Bara(c)ks

‍‍ז חשון תשסט - Nov 5th, 2008
by LB.
2 comments

For those of you living under a rock, Barack Obama is now the President-elect of the United States, and will take office in only a few short months.

Here in D.C., the celebrations are everywhere. People have been on the streets, yelling and screaming, cars honking, reveling their victory well into the night. In my opinion, however, this celebration will be short-lived, and in only a few years people will be asking themselves what went wrong.

Obama, despite all of his talk of uniting America, is nowhere near a centrist. He is far left on the American political spectrum. Without going into policy specifics, I predict that once he takes office, this man, whose charisma and oratorical skills are his only real selling points, will disappoint a large number of those who voted for him.

The celebrating crowds remind me of other celebrations due to a political victory. In 1999, another popular man won a big political victory, and his supporters celebrated well into the night of those elections as well. Ehud Barak was elected to the post of Prime Minister of Israel, over Benjamin Netanyahu, by a wide margin of 12 percentage points (during the short period in which direct elections for prime minister were held). At the time, his victory was considered a landslide. Yet less than two years later, maligned by a megalomaniacal, failure of a prime minister, who led the country into an unsuccessful capitulation, the public unceremoniously kicked Barak to the curb. In 2001, Ariel Sharon (on whom my views are the topic for another time) beat Ehud Barak by a margin of nearly 25 percentage points.

Cheap, demagogical populism does not last very long. The quick ascension of one Barak was followed by an even quicker downfall, and I think the same will happen to this Barack. I just hope we’ll all still be around to see it.

UPDATE: Soccerdad also has an analogy of Barack’s victory to Ehud Barak’s rise and fall.

You Don’t Want To? Don’t Vote!

‍‍ו חשון תשסט - Nov 4th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

After hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of hours, and way too many talking empty heads on TV, U.S. Election Day is finally here.

The campaign started off quite a while ago, with a lot more people in the race than the two major figures in the running today. I will not support anyone publicly on this blog, though if you have been reading some of what I have had to say, you probably have a pretty good picture of who I support (rather, who I do not support).

There has been a strong trend to try and “get out of the vote.” It happens every presidential election campaign, both in the U.S. and in Israel. In the U.S., however, it is more than just a PSA or two, it is a multimillion dollar campaign to convince people to vote. I understand the benefit of teaching children about their (future) civic rights, and how voting can and cannot influence their lives. What I cannot understand is trying to convince people to vote, who do not really want to.

Non-voters belong, primarily, to one of two groups. The first is an ideological minority who, for a variety of reasons, whether it be dissatisfaction with the choice candidates, or with the system itself. I can understand that, and I can even understand trying to convince these people to vote, to try and change system, or something else along those lines. Yet most non-voters do so out of laziness, forgetfulness, or an utter lack of interest. Why would I want to convince someone, who is so stupid as to forget to do something they deem very important (year after year) to have any influence over my life? Why would I want to convince someone who has no established opinion on the issues to do something that could potentially change my life?

If you don’t want to vote – don’t! And if that’s a choice, not a mistake, then more power to you.

Financial Crisis to Inadvertently Help Israel?

‍‍ל תשרי תשסט - Oct 29th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

Maybe something good can come out of the financial crisis that has ravaged stock markets everywhere. According to Aluf Benn the crisis “will force Israel to give up some of the aid it receives from the United States.” Benn suggest that in order to “prevent embarrassment and pressure, Israel would do well to initiate an aid reduction itself.” A reduction is only a step in the right direction. But Benn is wrong in characterizing such a move as a punishment for Israel. As I have said more than once, this aid is harming, much more than it is actually aiding, Israel.

Other than the seemingly valid justifications of American aid (economic assistance and US commitment to Israel and the IDF), Benn is of the opinion that “it is important for Israel to be at the top of the chart of recipients of American aid” as “a component of Israeli deterrence.” Absolutely not. In order for Israel to build up its deterrence effectively it needs to develop its own military industry, stop relying on this American crutch and eliminate any international perception of Israel as an American puppet.

Yes, “Israel’s critics in the United States argue that the military aid distorts the allocation of resources,” favoring “the most aggressive army in the Middle East…and indirectly deepening the Muslim world’s hatred of America.” Why contribute to their arsenal of lies, especially when we would be better off being truly independent? While making no judgment about American financial priorities, the aid does distort the allocation of resources – in Israel. It allows the Israel to be financially negligent and maintain a wasteful defense budget.

Benn adds that “there will also be an incentive to become more efficient.” I don’t understand. Why does one need an incentive to become efficient? American aid is a disincentive to become efficient, however, and the Israeli public sector is already much too wasteful. Providing an additional incentive to be inefficient is just not smart.

Saying that as a result of a reduction, or even an end, to American aid, the “IDF will need to pull long-term projects and put off equipping new planes and ships” is a misrepresentation of the big picture. While that might be the case in the short-term, in the long run the Israeli security forces will be much better off. We will be doing the research and development ourselves, promoting the domestic defense industry and the economy overall, we will be supplying ourselves, ending Israel’s reliance on the capriciousness of the U.S. Government.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →