Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Politics

Existential Threats – Corruption

‍‍א סיון תשסט - May 23rd, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

In 1977, then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin resigned from his post upon Aharon Barak’s (Attorney General at the time) announcement that he intended to prosecute Rabin, along with his wife Leah. The charge was possession of an illegal bank account in the US (today such accounts are legal). That was then.

While in office, Ehud Olmert was investigated for at least five different criminal allegations, including various corruption charges. Despite far surpassing the appearance of impropriety, and widely considered a grossly incompetent prime minister, Olmert continued to deny any wrongdoing and insisted on remaining in office until late 2008. Olmert is not alone. Another former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, former Minister of Finance (Avraham Hirschson), and many others have “contributed to the breakdown of public morality.”

The delegitmization of Israel, terrorism, and the Iranian threat have a nearly permanent spot in the headlines. Jerusalem, and even Israel’s diminishing sovereignty are notable problems. One issue, however, that does not seem to be as well-known outside of Israel, is corruption and the disintegration of basic law and order.

Over the past few decades, elected officials have become more corrupt, and far more brazen in flouting the law. Michael Oren is right:

[Corruption] undermines Israel’s ability to cope with other threats; that saps the willingness of Israelis to fight, to govern themselves, and even to continue living within a sovereign Jewish state. It emboldens Israel’s enemies and sullies Israel’s international reputation.

Unlike in the U.S., children in Israel are not indoctrinated throughout elementary school with the old adage that “crime doesn’t pay.” One reason for that might be that, in today’s Israel, it is not true. More severe sentences need to be handed down, not only to violent criminals, but to those who steal from the public and run the country into the ground.

One possible reason for the absence of quality elected officials is that many, if not most, Israelis do not look up to Knesset Members, nor do they aspire to run for office. Until the recent economic downturn, Israel’s best and brightest turned to medicine, hi-tech, and life abroad. It is yet to be seen if this will change, and what the next “hot” field will be. It will not, most likely, be elected office. After all, that’s for frayerim.

Oren on Existential Threats – Sovereignty

‍‍ט אייר תשסט - May 21st, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

As I mentioned yesterday, Jerusalem is slipping out of Israel’s hands, and unless something is done soon, Israel will be in big trouble. This leads to another threat Oren brings up, Israel’s “Hemorrhaging of Sovereignty.”

Israel has long avoided enforcing the law in many areas under its control. In the eastern part of Jerusalem, Israel-proper by law, Arabs (who have permanent resident status) have built hundreds of illegal houses, in violation of building codes. After decades of turning a blind eye, Israel finally decided to demolish a small number of illegally built houses. However, sovereignty has never been strongly asserted over all of the city, and the U.S. felt it can get involved in this domestic matter.

The situation is similar in the Galil and the Negev. In addition to building codes, taxes are routinely evaded by large swaths of the population. In response, widespread discrimination against the Arab community is alleged. While de facto equality may not be the situation today (infrastructure and education are poor in the Arab sector), perhaps some of the problems would be alleviated if the residents funded their local municipalities, as well as other entitlements they receive from the state on a regular basis.

Oren also mentioned the Haredim and the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria. It is projected that by 2012, one third of Israeli schoolchildren will be Haredi, the overwhelming majority of which will not be serving in the army. Over the Green Line, confrontations between Israeli residents and the IDF are on the rise. There are many reasons for this (unequal enforcement and capitulation to foreign demands, to name a few), but the fact is that violence between the army and the state’s citizens is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.

And in the Knesset, numerous members not only disavow the legitimacy of the state they serve, “[t]hey actively call for its dissolution.” Free speech is an important value, but certain elected officials have abused that right for years. Running to the High Court every time an illegal party is disqualified is counterproductive, wrong, and does not allow Israel to assert its sovereignty. Freedom of speech is not an absolute value. Yes, many Arab citizens are not happy with the state, but allowing supporters of the enemy to sling mud at the state they have sworn to serve is not acceptable.

Sovereignty is bleeding out of another gaping hole – the famed “U.S.-Israel relationship.” It is an uneven relationship, in which America pays for the “right” to intervene in issues that are distinctly Israel’s business. As I’ve said in the past, accepting these funds renders Israel beholden to the U.S., and is extremely harmful to Israel’s image. Anti-Israel “activists” believe that ending American aid will bring Israel to its knees and “end the occupation.” This is an argument that needs to be proven false. This so-called aid must end immediately.

Israel’s economy, even in this day and age, will collapse as a result of pursuing true independence. On the contrary, it will spur economic activity, and allow Israel to pursue its own policy decisions, without the State Department breathing down its neck. In any case, if Israel is a sovereign nation, then it needs to stand on its own two feet.

The Urge to Terrorize

‍‍כא אייר תשסט - May 14th, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

In order to lose weight, one must resist the urge to overeat. In order to overcome alcoholism, one must resist the urge to drink. There are many urges humans have, many of them potentially harmful. Considering the benefits, if fleeting, of giving in to these urges, the need to resist them is only natural.

Speaking in Bethlehem yesterday, the Pope called on the Palestinians to “have the courage to resist any temptation… to resort to acts of violence or terrorism.”

What sort of sick individual is tempted to commit mass murder? Do people really need to be courageous in order to resist the urge to “resort” to terrorism?

White House and Israel on Iran – Not Together

‍‍י אייר תשסט - May 4th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

Over the past few weeks there has been increased talk of tying the Iranian and Palestinian issues. These two matters are only similar insofar as both are threats to Israel, and little else. Nevertheless, the White House has decided that it will not move on the Iranian nuclear threat until Israel follows American instructions on “the peace process.”

Since doing so would be tantamount to suicide, both Ahmadinajad and Hamas must be ecstatic. Not only has the American danger to Iran nearly disappeared, the US has effectively taken a step towards Hamas. This inane notion that “a breakthrough in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states would restrain Tehran’s influence” is very worrying, considering the amount of influence the US has over Israel.

As expected, Rahm Emanuel is promoting the connection of these two unrelated issues. Speaking to AIPAC donors Sunday, “[h]e reiterated that the ability to confront Iran depended on the ability to make progress on the Palestinian front.”

Iran is a country whose leader has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and is a primary funder of Hamas. Even if the resolution of the “Palestinian issue” were imminent, Iran would only be emboldened. Such a resolution would amount to a loss of Iranian influence on the ground, forcing them to be “creative” in threatening Israel, not facilitate “handling of the main threat posed by Iran.’

The new American administration has all but committed not to attack Iran, which begs the question: how will the US approach Iran and its nuclear program? And if the US does believe this is such an important issue, why does the White House appear to be blackmailing Israel? This has only forced the new Israeli administration to present a reciprocal demand: no movement on “Palestinian issue” unless until there is real “progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran.”

Obama’s, along with his chief of staff, performance is in poor taste. Sending the son of an Irgun member to twist Israel’s arm seems like little more than cheap political ploy to gain more influence in the Middle East.

Michael Oren – Thoughts

‍‍כט ניסן תשסט - Apr 22nd, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

Michael Oren is one of my favorite writers. A great historian, he manages to compile long and complicated histories in a fairly simple, and easily digestible way. Despite it having sat on my shelf for a number of years, I finally read “Six Days of War,” fairly recently. It is a history textbook, inundated with dates and figures, yet at the same time, it is a true page turner.

In addition to his writing, Oren is a charismatic speaker, as well. I recently heard him speak about the strategic threats that Israel faces today. The first of these threats, of course, is Iran. One argument that is raised against an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is that states are rational actors, and Iran would not benefit, to say the least, from sending nuclear missiles at another nuclear state.

As Oren illustrated, the issue is deeper than that. Were Iran to nuclearize, it would be able to put the region under nuclear alert, at whim. This sort of toying with Israel would have far reaching repercussions. Apart from destroying the tourist industry, the results of the IDF being on constant high alert would cost the state enormous amounts of money, all the while affecting a near total cessation of market activity, leading to an even greater economic disaster. This, of course, in addition to the arms race that would be launched among Israel’s neighbors, most of whom are not particularly friendly to the Jewish state (This was outlined in article for The New Republic, which Oren co-wrote with Yossi Klein Halevi).

Still on the subject of military threats, Oren addressed the issue of missiles. As mentioned, Israel’s north has been hit hard by missiles, most recently during the summer of 2006, and Hamas can now reach major Israel cities, shooting from Gaza. One of the strongest strategic arguments against Israeli withdrawals, one that was made in 2005, is that territory ceded will serve as a base for missiles that will be launched at Israeli residential areas.

Oren, a proponent of unilateral withdrawals, said that Israel has systems to thwart such attacks, and upon deployment of these systems in the near future, Hamas’s use of short range missiles will be neutralized. He mentioned two systems that will work in tandem to combat the missile threat. First, the Iron Dome, set to be operational by 2010, detects an incoming missile and launches an anti-missile missile to intercept it. The second, based on the M61 Vulcan, destroys incoming projectiles by shooting a high number of rounds per second, eliminating them in mid-air. However, even if these systems are effective, it seems the government has acted in typical Israeli fashion, and woken up very late.

With regards to prospects for peace, Oren briefly promoted the idea of developing Palestinian industry and education, and bolstering their moderate leadership. Again, I am confounded. No, he did not mention Mahmoud Abbas or Fatah as these moderates, but this statement nonetheless confounds me. But to which moderates is he referring? Assuming there are moderate figures somewhere in the Palestinian leadership, what good is it to help them if they have no public support? Did the numerous gestures towards Abbas serve as a moderating influence on Palestinian society? As Robert Kaplan asks, do they even want to be in a position in which statehood would be a real possibility?

Demographics are becoming more important every day. Jews represent only slightly over 75% of Israeli citizens. Most of the remaining quarter, do not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and Israel needs an overwhelming majority of Jews in order to maintain its status as the Jewish state. Nevertheless, Oren thinks that the shrinking birthrate of Arab-Israelis, alleviates cause for serious concern regarding Israeli citizens.

When looking at the entire populace between the river and the sea, Israel is approaching the day in which Jews will no longer be a majority. In order to address this problem and ensure a positive demographic balance within the area under Israeli control, Oren foresees a necessity for further Israel unilateral withdrawals from territory beyond the Green Line.

This does not add up. As he said, Israel deployed 55,000 security personnel in order to carry out the withdrawal from Gaza – the largest Israeli military operation since the Yom Kippur War. Within the framework of almost any future withdrawal plan, 80-100,000 Jews will need to leave their homes. Their homes, which are located in the heart of the Jewish ancestral homeland. As Oren himself acknowledged, in light of the difficulties encountered in Gaza, which will be compounded in any future similar action, any Israeli government is extremely unlikely to succeed in carrying out such a plan. Any unilateral withdrawal plan will probably be based on the route of the Security Fence, so unless Oren supports leaving large numbers of Israeli citizens in enemy territory, I am not sure what he is advocating.

All in all, though, Oren’s talk set a very optimistic tone. However, the limited question and answer period did not flesh out the logical gaps in the his illustration of Israel’s situation today. One issue he discussed which did inspire some confidence is water – largely due to the construction of a major desalination plant, Israel might finally be digging its way out of what is still a very dry hole.

UN-Consistency

‍‍כז ניסן תשסט - Apr 20th, 2009
by LB.
3 comments

Israel has been criticized endlessly, both internally and externally, for countless alleged crimes. A popular accusation is of collective punishment. I do not wish to examine the facts of the matter here, but to raise a general question about the legality of such acts, particularly as seen by the United Nations.

Only a few short months ago, a UN representative characterized Israel’s policy with regards to the Gaza crossings as a “crime against humanity”, by “allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease.” Again, setting aside the issue of whether or not this is indeed what Israel has been doing, the greater question here is of whether or not such actions, in theory, are permissible.

There is no simple answer. Such a question necessarily leads to the examination of additional issues. To what extent is your populace a higher priority than the enemy? What is the goal of such acts? Is it an attainable goal? However, such questions have all been hashed and rehashed countless times (Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars is a good place to start).

A recent oped in the New York Times shed some light on this issue. Wayne Long, who served as the UN’s chief security officer in Somalia for an entire decade, wrote about the recent wave of piracy. A few of the examples from his experience dealing with kidnappers in Somalia, however, are extremely eye-opening. Using a fairly straightforward strategy, “United Nations assistance was withheld… until those hostages were released. In every case there was a release, and in no case were hostages harmed or ransom paid.” The problem with this is that it is precisely the same approach for which Israel is being blamed.

Long tells of a 1995 incident, in which an aid worker was taken hostage. In response, the UN humanitarian agencies operating in the area simply shut off the water supply for the capital, Mogadishu. Doing so directed the local population’s rage at the kidnappers, who took four days to release the hostage.

The piece continues with a few more similar stories, but the message is clear. The UN uses collective punishment in order to achieve their goals. They refuse to capitulate to terrorists. This was official UN policy, as undertaken in Somalia.

I’ll reiterate that I am deliberately ignoring the question of what Israel has actually been doing, or what it has done in the past. That is a separate issue altogether. Nevertheless, why does the UN decry Israel’s implemention of a policy that the UN has used in the past, and in the same breath, call it a crime? Why does it demand that Gazan terrorists not be treated the same way as Somalians?

Religious Soldiers and the Establishment

‍‍יח ניסן תשסט - Apr 12th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

I’m probably paraphrasing badly, but someone once told me that the true sign of a liberal is that will stand for anyone’s belief – as long they agree they should have it. In other words, freedom of expression does not apply for those who differ from you. I would hope that is not true for all (who claim to be) proponents of civil liberties and freedom of speech, but it certainly seems to be the case when it comes to the criticism of religious soldiers in the IDF.

A few weeks ago, in an event marking the brigade’s performance in Operation Cast Lead, a group of religious, observant paratroopers left the event, in order to avoid listening to a woman singer. This was not out of protest, but because their belief is that halacha forbids for men to listen to a woman singing.

In response, the IDF chief education officer, Brigadier-General (tat-aluf) Gen. Eli Shermeister, “called the incident a ‘worrisome phenomenon’ that ‘should not be accorded continued legitimacy.’” Why should religious practices be delegitimized, according to an officer in the army of the Jewish state? Because allowing participants to leave an event “designed to foster group cohesion” would “defeat the purpose” of such an event. I don’t understand, if group cohesion is so important, wouldn’t an event acceptable to all members of the group be best suited to achieve such a goal?

Mordechai Keidar, in an opinion piece in Ynet, hits the nail on the head, “In a liberal state with free media, I would expect open and innovative thinking that would show tolerance to different people.” Where is this is tolerance?

Dr. Esther Herzog does not agree (Hebrew). She attributes “gross and ugly contempt exhibited by [Keidar's] column towards the secular culture and educational system, that points more to ignorance and close-mindedness than to openness and cultural-social sensitivity.” How is she able to say that with a straight face? The only ones who exhibited a lack of sensitivity and close-mindedness here are those who dare to say that religious soldiers should not be permitted to practice religion.

Herzog continues, in essence calling Judaism chauvinistic, mischaracterizing the soldiers’ actions as “boycotting women.” She claims that accusing the secular community of a lack of values is a smokescreen for “discrimination, deprivation, and exploitation of women.” The differences between the religious and secular communities are much more than gender-based, and by characterizing everything she does not like as sexual discrimination, Herzog is crying wolf, and badly.

Keidar’s accusation that “a cultural vacuum [has been] imparted to a whole generation of young people by the secular education system” because of its “drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, and the club culture,” is one that needs to be addressed, not deflected. It needs to be examined, for secular need not mean value-less, and should not mean anti-religious, either. And if Israel is really the “liberal state” it claims to be, then freedoms need to be accorded even to those with whom IDF event planners disagree.

There is No War on Israel’s Campuses, but Why?

‍‍י ניסן תשסט - Apr 3rd, 2009
by LB.
10 comments

The fact that there is an ongoing PR war for Israel on campuses is no secret. A multitude of speakers, social events, editorials, student groups on both sides – all devoted to protecting or harming Israel’s reputation on campus in the West.

Much less known is how tarnished the image of Israel is in Israel itself. During Operation Cast Lead large demonstrations were held in places like the University of Haifa and Hebrew University, waving enemy flags and accusing Israel of committing massacres in Gaza.

If it were simple that then it would not be so alarming. Freedom of speech is an important value, and protesters, comprised of a minority group of enemy sympathizers, will only anger the Zionist majority, thereby undermining their own cause. However, these sentiments are not checked at the door to the lecture hall.

A recent study by Im Tirtzu illustrates a worrisome picture of higher education in Israel. The study is not short, and is important for the understanding some of the reasons behind the abandonment of Zionism in favor of pseudo-universalism. However, the most important findings concern materials assigned in classes that deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Six well known, and relatively well-represented, scholars were chosen and syllabi from classes at Israeli universities were examined to see which of these scholars’ work was assigned, and how many times. These scholars are, on one side, Baruch Kimmerling (read Benny Morris review, destorying Kimmerling’s book), Uri Ram (proudly “post-Zionist”), and Edward Said (need I say more?). On the other side, are Amnon Rubinstein (legal scholar, former Meretz MK, who has written widely on Zionism), Ruth Gavison (law professor who has also written on the dilemma of Jewish-Democratic state), and Shlomo Avineri (written widely on political philosophy, as well as Zionism).

Of these scholars, Kimmerling’s work was assigned 23 times, Uri Ram’s 10 times and Edward Said – four times. Ruth Gavison, Amnon Rubinstein and Shlomo Avineri’s work, combined, was only assigned seven times.

The study also looked at academic publications by the political science departments of universities, and found that, overall, nearly 80% of studies published are either anti-Zionist or anti-nationalist in general.

Academic freedom is important. Very important. Repressing that freedom is bad. However, if Zionism stands on solid grounds, and is based on historical facts (and it does), then Israel’s students are being taught by professors who harbor more than just a bias against Israel. They are misleading, at best, and at worst – lying.

In any case, the question must be raised – how is it, that in Israel, of all places, this is happening practically unnoticed?

Is a Boycott Just? Who Cares – Does it Work?

‍‍כב אדר תשסט - Mar 17th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

To Boycott or Not to Boycott, That Is the Question No it’s not. Stanley Fish, law professor, and NY Times blogger, appears reasonable in debating whether or not an academic boycott of Israel is a good idea. However reasonable, though, he does not come to a concrete conclusion about such a boycott until the very end where he briefly mentions that “those actions, [the boycott of South Africa].. were and are antithetical to the academic enterprise, which while it may provide the tools (of argument, fact and historical research) that enable good and righteous deeds, should never presume to perform them.”

What he does is attempt to rebut arguments of opponents of the boycott. One such argument is that such a narrow focus on Israel is dishonest and hypocritical. The claim presents the question: Where are the calls for boycott of, and divestment from Sudan and China, not to mention Saudi Arabia and Iran? Picking Israel is dangerously close to antisemitism (if not more dangerous).

Yet Fish says, “If you supported the boycott of South Africa and the disinvestment by universities from companies doing business in or with that country, you are obligated, by your own history, to support the boycott of Israeli academics.”

“Anti-boycotters” do not (nor should not) argue what Fish paraphrases. Such an argument is moot, if not harmful in the end, since South Africa was clearly apartheid.Israel, on the other hand, has, by and large, acted justly (if not a bit meekly).

Fish misses the point entirely. Whether or not the theoretical boycott of a criminal state may be an interesting philosophical question, but is irrelevant with regards to Israel. Fish’s starting point seems to be that Israel is wrong and has committed crimes – and that the problem at hand is how to address these crimes.

I should expect more from a law professor. I don’t, but I should. Over 2,000 words, and not one actually deals with the question of Israel’s culpability. Fish’s implies that whether or not Israeli academics are responsible, the Israeli government is wrong, and is criminal. Indeed, his starting point is that Israel’s actions today are as wrong as apartheid South Africa’s were.

Nowhere does he look at Israeli actions in Gaza this past December/January, actual attacks, what preceded them, Israeli aid to Gaza, whether there was a causus belli, Israel’s jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and examine them in light of relevant international law – the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, treaties to which Israel is a signatory. He just decides that 2009 Israel = 1948 South Africa. This is one academic that has definitely not performed “the tools of argument, fact and historical research.”

Cohen: Murder Leads to Peace

‍‍טו אדר תשסט - Mar 11th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

Roger Cohen is either a racist, a fool, or suicidal. His utterly stupid column this week has been parsed by plenty of others, and I have no desire to rehash his drivel.

Cohen doubts that “Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance.” That must mean that the recent poll conducted in the P.A. shows that a majority within Palestinian society actively seeks peace (Hebrew Ynet). How else can one explain that if elections were held today, genocidal Hamas, led by Haniyeh would win 47% v. Fatah, led by Holocaust denier Abbas.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →