Here are two amusing-but-serious columns about the relations between the Haredi part of Israeli society and the rest. The first, by Shachar Ilan, a secular observer and critic, until recently at Haaretz, offers 18 positive things about the Haredis. In response, Yaacov Rivlin, a Haredi blogger, finds 18 positive things to say about the secular Israelis. (Though his mostly Haredi readers rather disagree with him).
I don't have the time to translate right now, so Hebrew-challenged readers need not follow the links, alas. Here's one from each side:
Ilan about the Haredi: They read. Really.
Rivlin about the secular: Every few years they go to the polls and vote according to their own decision.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Legality of a War
The Guardian is unhappy that a commission appointed by its own government to look into how the UK went to war in Iraq (the Chilcot inquiry) may not look carefully enough at the legal aspects.
International law, you see, is above the sovereign decisions of a democratically elected government.
And the legal experts know better than the citizens and their elected representatives.
There have been repeated calls from influential legal and judicial figures for an investigation into whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal, including the former senior law lord Lord Bingham, who last year reiterated that it was "a serious violation of international law".
International law, you see, is above the sovereign decisions of a democratically elected government.
"Some of the debates around the legality of the war are quite sophisticated – it is not all clear-cut," the senior legal figure said. "It's going to be very difficult to deal with someone like Blair without a panel experienced in cross-examination."
And the legal experts know better than the citizens and their elected representatives.
Winning Can Be Ugly, But It's Better Than Losing
Just two days ago we heard that the Hamas leadership in Gaza really really doesn't want anyone shooting at Israel. Since there are just about always armed Palestinians who are even more extreme, it's not clear this plea is going to be fulfilled. Someone in Gaza is still shooting, even if their ability to do so is very limited, and Israel is still responding. This could escalate, it could peter out, or it could continue as it has for the past 8 months, as a minor irritant that doesn't much affect the lives of any Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile, in faraway Brazil, Abbas explains that the Palestinians aren't about to launch a third intifada, even though the Israelis aren't giving them everything they think they deserve, because they've suffered too much from the second one. Abbas is ultimately not the one to make that decision - if there are enough Palestinians who want another intifada they can have it without his permission - but the impression is that in this matter, at this moment, he's expressing the will of his people. They really don't want another round.
The Palestinian decision of Fall 2000 to respond to Israel's proposals with violence was touted at the time as the desperate act of a people with no choice; Israel was told by the entire international community that its only possible response was to reward the Palestinians in negotiations. This was not true at the time, and the various Palestinian leaderships seem to be publicly admitting it now. Their choice to use violence was fraught with danger, and the dangers indeed materialized. This is profoundly unfortunate, and thousands of people, a majority of them Palestinians, paid with their lives. It is also what war is about.
Israel's neighbors who refrain from starting wars don't suffer from the results of the wars they don't start.
Meanwhile, in faraway Brazil, Abbas explains that the Palestinians aren't about to launch a third intifada, even though the Israelis aren't giving them everything they think they deserve, because they've suffered too much from the second one. Abbas is ultimately not the one to make that decision - if there are enough Palestinians who want another intifada they can have it without his permission - but the impression is that in this matter, at this moment, he's expressing the will of his people. They really don't want another round.
The Palestinian decision of Fall 2000 to respond to Israel's proposals with violence was touted at the time as the desperate act of a people with no choice; Israel was told by the entire international community that its only possible response was to reward the Palestinians in negotiations. This was not true at the time, and the various Palestinian leaderships seem to be publicly admitting it now. Their choice to use violence was fraught with danger, and the dangers indeed materialized. This is profoundly unfortunate, and thousands of people, a majority of them Palestinians, paid with their lives. It is also what war is about.
Israel's neighbors who refrain from starting wars don't suffer from the results of the wars they don't start.
Monday, November 23, 2009
American Jewry from Many Directions
Mondowiess is furious that J Street is against the anit-Israel boycott movement. Is this a tempest in the far-left American Jewish teacup, or is it a rant by the pedigreed loonies against a group that's disappointing them by staying within the general consensus? We need to know more about J Street than we presently do to be able to answer that.
Meanwhile, back in the mainstream, The Forward has published its annual "50 Top American Jews" list. It may take you half an hour to read, but I recommend. It's fascinating. It also shows a vibrant, diverse and creative American Jewry.
Ah, and there's Michael Oren, of course.
Meanwhile, back in the mainstream, The Forward has published its annual "50 Top American Jews" list. It may take you half an hour to read, but I recommend. It's fascinating. It also shows a vibrant, diverse and creative American Jewry.
Ah, and there's Michael Oren, of course.
Obama From the Left
I really ought to write a post about Obama's scolding us last week on Jerusalem. Maybe I'll find the time, and be online, but not right now. In the meantime, however, you might want to look at this column by Zvi Bar'el. Bar'el is the Haaretz correspondent for the entire Arab (and sometimes even Muslim) world beyond the Palestinians (Avi Issacharoff reports on the Palestinians, as does, sort of, Amira Haas). He's decidedly left, not irrationally so, but he's not center-left, either. So it's interesting to see how he wants to agree with Obama's position, but recognizes the intellectual hollowness of it (that's his word, not mine).
The American demand is proper, even if it is very late and unusually aggressive. However, its lack of context is infuriating. Freezing settlements is not a policy. Its entire purpose is to give Mahmoud Abbas, the resigning Palestinian Authority president, a reason to get back to negotiations. But negotiations cannot be a final goal, just as freezing settlements cannot be considered the ultimate achievement. What then? Is Abbas doomed to be a constant negotiator in endless negotiations? Does Washington have a plan for continuing negotiations?
Without a solid American diplomatic plan that will make Israelis, not Netanyahu, understand how to keep negotiations from bogging down a moment after Abbas and Netanyahu start talking; without a clear American position on the Palestinian right of return and the holy places, and whether Washington is for or against Palestinian reconciliation that brings Hamas into the government; the settlement freeze will become an unnecessary test of strength between Netanyahu and Obama. Because if the American president takes the trouble to look into one illegal building in East Jerusalem, and rightly so, he cannot in the same breath say that the really important questions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are none of his business.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
We Regret to Infrom...
Haaretz carried a full-page ad on Friday, from Btselem. The graphics were of a death announcement, and it went:
You can disagree with much that Btselem does - I certainly do - but they're trying to fix what they percieve as wrong in their own society, and they live here to pay the price when they're wrong. You've got to respect that, at least. They aren't the same as the International Intervention Brigade.
Btselem regrets to inform the public that it has reached the age of 20.At the bottom was an invitation to join them in tours they're giving. I signed up to a tour of Hebron, next week.
We're sick of it. And you're sick of us. But four million people in the Occupied Territories still lack their rights, and they're even more sick of it.
When they live in dignity and freedom, we'll leave. We promise.
You can disagree with much that Btselem does - I certainly do - but they're trying to fix what they percieve as wrong in their own society, and they live here to pay the price when they're wrong. You've got to respect that, at least. They aren't the same as the International Intervention Brigade.
Multilateral Sovereignty
Ten days ago, after I posted my reflections on the Goldstone Report, I found myself deep in an interesting e-mail correspondence with a law professor from Tel Aviv University who is a vocal supporter of abolishing national sovereignty and replacing it with an international human rights brigade. I'm not certain he would have chosen those precise words, but he was quite clear about the underlying principles. Actually, it was even worse, because his definition of what goes under "human rights" is breathtakingly wide, far beyond anything ever conceived of back in the late 1940s, when this fad got seriously underway.
He also rebuked me for not agreeing with him, given how by training I'm an historian of Nazism; I, of all people, should be better informed, he said.
Well. Maybe that explains why I've changed career tracks, I suppose.
Anyway, while I've been aware of this subject for quite a while, this correspondence, along with my reading of the Goldstone Report which preceded it, has alerted me to the seriousness of the issue. There really are many millions of people out there who are eager to whittle away democracy, i.e the responsibility of the electorate to make decisions, so as to replace it with teams of unelected specialists who are confident in their ability to know better what needs to be done, and what is unacceptable. The professor even called my type of democracy, the outmoded type, "technical democracy", while the type he advocates he called "fundamental democracy" or some such term (democratia mahutit).
So I've inaugurated a new tag (see below), called multilateral sovereignty, which I'll use to mark posts about this. Perhaps some day I'll write a book about it, who knows. If you're not interested in this newish interest of mine, feel free to skip those posts, or if I'm really annoying you, you may cancel your subscription.
The Economist last week had a thoughtful column on the fiscal aspects of this subject and their hazards.
Israel's Supreme Court just this week gave a dramatic demonstration, too. Five years after the Knesset passed a law enabling the careful privatization of prisons, the justices threw out the law. Haaretz has the story here, and two columns about it, one in favor of the decision, one critical.
I'm not convinced one way or the other myself. I'm uncomfortable with the ability of five unelected judges to throw out a law. I think it's ridiulous it took them five years, years in which the private businessmen spent a very large sum to build a prison and hire and train its staff. The fact that American, British and French legislators have passed similar laws, which haven't been struck down, indicates to me that it's not obvious that privately-run prisons must obviously be transgressors against the human rights of prisoners. On the other hand, I like the ability of Israel to decide for itself, irrespective of what others decide: that's the very essence of sovereignty. As for the prison itself, it seems the prisoners in the privately-run prison might actually have been treated better than those in the state run one - highly ironic, that - but on the other hand, I can see the sense of contending that the state must preserve it's monopoly of the use of force.
It's complicated. All the more reason not to take it out of the hands of the elected legislators, no?
He also rebuked me for not agreeing with him, given how by training I'm an historian of Nazism; I, of all people, should be better informed, he said.
Well. Maybe that explains why I've changed career tracks, I suppose.
Anyway, while I've been aware of this subject for quite a while, this correspondence, along with my reading of the Goldstone Report which preceded it, has alerted me to the seriousness of the issue. There really are many millions of people out there who are eager to whittle away democracy, i.e the responsibility of the electorate to make decisions, so as to replace it with teams of unelected specialists who are confident in their ability to know better what needs to be done, and what is unacceptable. The professor even called my type of democracy, the outmoded type, "technical democracy", while the type he advocates he called "fundamental democracy" or some such term (democratia mahutit).
So I've inaugurated a new tag (see below), called multilateral sovereignty, which I'll use to mark posts about this. Perhaps some day I'll write a book about it, who knows. If you're not interested in this newish interest of mine, feel free to skip those posts, or if I'm really annoying you, you may cancel your subscription.
The Economist last week had a thoughtful column on the fiscal aspects of this subject and their hazards.
Israel's Supreme Court just this week gave a dramatic demonstration, too. Five years after the Knesset passed a law enabling the careful privatization of prisons, the justices threw out the law. Haaretz has the story here, and two columns about it, one in favor of the decision, one critical.
I'm not convinced one way or the other myself. I'm uncomfortable with the ability of five unelected judges to throw out a law. I think it's ridiulous it took them five years, years in which the private businessmen spent a very large sum to build a prison and hire and train its staff. The fact that American, British and French legislators have passed similar laws, which haven't been struck down, indicates to me that it's not obvious that privately-run prisons must obviously be transgressors against the human rights of prisoners. On the other hand, I like the ability of Israel to decide for itself, irrespective of what others decide: that's the very essence of sovereignty. As for the prison itself, it seems the prisoners in the privately-run prison might actually have been treated better than those in the state run one - highly ironic, that - but on the other hand, I can see the sense of contending that the state must preserve it's monopoly of the use of force.
It's complicated. All the more reason not to take it out of the hands of the elected legislators, no?
Analyzing Warstuff
Where do you go if you're an American general, say, or a British one, and your troops in Iraq or Afghanistan are encountering a new type of homemade but lethal weapon, and you need some advice on what it's made from so as the better to defend yourself?
To Israel, of course. The Israelis have this unit, run by a mad scientist, who collects bit of ordnance, learns everything possible about it, and makes useful recommendations.
So far, so not surprising. The part I found of special interest, however, was this one:
Interesting, isn't it? The troops in the field and their commanders weren't sure what was going on, so the forensic fellows back near Tel Aviv figured out there must be a Palestinian sniper hidden nearby. Just the kind of thing the foreign observers and bearers of human rights in vain always know better about than the professionals who are there at the time.
To Israel, of course. The Israelis have this unit, run by a mad scientist, who collects bit of ordnance, learns everything possible about it, and makes useful recommendations.
Recently, the American military began studying the IDF experience. "They never imagined IEDs like that. They're still back in the 1980s, fighting the Soviets. They're making this huge review and came to us to learn everything about the materials and how to take the things apart," says Tuval.
Delegates from other armies fighting in Afghanistan, including the British, Italians and Germans, have also visited the lab to study the threats ahead. British experts, this time from Scotland Yard, also visited the lab in 2005 to learn the types of explosives used in the 2005 London bombings, which were different from bombs they knew from the IRA.
So far, so not surprising. The part I found of special interest, however, was this one:
In other cases, the lab is requested to produce results in real time. During Operation Cast Lead the lab deduced from shrapnel embedded in a paratroop officer's helmet that he was not injured by an IED but by a sniper's bullet, thus making the army aware a sniper was operating in that area.
Interesting, isn't it? The troops in the field and their commanders weren't sure what was going on, so the forensic fellows back near Tel Aviv figured out there must be a Palestinian sniper hidden nearby. Just the kind of thing the foreign observers and bearers of human rights in vain always know better about than the professionals who are there at the time.
Hamas: No Return to Warfare, Please
One of the small military factions even more extreme than Hamas shot a rocket into Israel yesterday. The Hamas rulers of Gaza hurriedly read them the riot act: no one shoots at Israel. We don't want any re-run of last January. Maybe some day, but not this year.
It has been about eight months now since the rocket attacks on southern Israel have dwindled to a drizzle, and apparently even that has Hamas nervous. This inevitably won't last forever, but for the time being, it seems our operation was proportional: there was a problem, we took action, and the problem was resolved.
Rather straightforward, don't you think?
It has been about eight months now since the rocket attacks on southern Israel have dwindled to a drizzle, and apparently even that has Hamas nervous. This inevitably won't last forever, but for the time being, it seems our operation was proportional: there was a problem, we took action, and the problem was resolved.
Rather straightforward, don't you think?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Innovative Farmers
It was great to be offline. I recommend it to everyone, and ought to do more of it myself.
One day we drove up to the Dalton Plateau, near the top of the Upper Galilee. Some 15 years ago a family of local farmers were about to plant an orchard of apricots, when someone caught their wrist and told them to have a look at pomegranates. So they had a look, and went for it. They must have been accompanied by some savvy agronomists, however, and spent a few years developing a new strain of pomegranates, which gave enormous fruit - 1.2 kg each, they claim, the size of a soccer ball. They then noticed that the sugar level of their monsters were already within the range of wine grapes... so why sell fruit if you can sell wine instead? This took another few years of research and development, but about 5 years ago they began marketing red wine based on pomegranates. We were shown 5 different types of wine, but apparently they've got more. All are excellent. Last year they sold 570,000 bottles, 70% of them exported.
They claim they're the first and only producers of pomegranate wine worldwide. They are currently working with Shiba hospital and Tel Aviv University to document the health qualities of their products, which apparently are even better than regular red wine.
Their website is here. Check them out: perhaps their products can be found at a supermarket near you.
Beside being a nice story, worth the telling on its own account, you won't be surprised I'm using it to make a broader point, about life in an entrepreneurial society. These folks, I remind you, are farmers, living on a windswept, rather desolate-looking mountaintop a few miles south of the Lebanese border. The nearest big city, Safed, isn't. Big, I mean. Haifa is an hour and a half away, reasonably far by tiny Israel's standards. They're not high-techies, not engineers, not young adventurers out to disrupt some well established industry. Yet once they dropped the boring idea of planting apricots, they're surrounded by the infrastructures and ethos necessary to be cutting edge innovators. They've got agronomists, medical researchers, engineers to develop the tools to extract all possible components from their fruit and turn it into wine, oil, and lotions. They can find someone to market their previously unheard of product. They've got a good, multi-lingual website. They've got the financiers. And there's the social expectation and encouragement: you've got a cool idea? Run with it. Everyone else does. The worst that can happen is that it won't succeed. But why shouldn't it?
One day we drove up to the Dalton Plateau, near the top of the Upper Galilee. Some 15 years ago a family of local farmers were about to plant an orchard of apricots, when someone caught their wrist and told them to have a look at pomegranates. So they had a look, and went for it. They must have been accompanied by some savvy agronomists, however, and spent a few years developing a new strain of pomegranates, which gave enormous fruit - 1.2 kg each, they claim, the size of a soccer ball. They then noticed that the sugar level of their monsters were already within the range of wine grapes... so why sell fruit if you can sell wine instead? This took another few years of research and development, but about 5 years ago they began marketing red wine based on pomegranates. We were shown 5 different types of wine, but apparently they've got more. All are excellent. Last year they sold 570,000 bottles, 70% of them exported.
They claim they're the first and only producers of pomegranate wine worldwide. They are currently working with Shiba hospital and Tel Aviv University to document the health qualities of their products, which apparently are even better than regular red wine.
Their website is here. Check them out: perhaps their products can be found at a supermarket near you.
Beside being a nice story, worth the telling on its own account, you won't be surprised I'm using it to make a broader point, about life in an entrepreneurial society. These folks, I remind you, are farmers, living on a windswept, rather desolate-looking mountaintop a few miles south of the Lebanese border. The nearest big city, Safed, isn't. Big, I mean. Haifa is an hour and a half away, reasonably far by tiny Israel's standards. They're not high-techies, not engineers, not young adventurers out to disrupt some well established industry. Yet once they dropped the boring idea of planting apricots, they're surrounded by the infrastructures and ethos necessary to be cutting edge innovators. They've got agronomists, medical researchers, engineers to develop the tools to extract all possible components from their fruit and turn it into wine, oil, and lotions. They can find someone to market their previously unheard of product. They've got a good, multi-lingual website. They've got the financiers. And there's the social expectation and encouragement: you've got a cool idea? Run with it. Everyone else does. The worst that can happen is that it won't succeed. But why shouldn't it?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Offline
I am going decidedly, firmly, very much offline. I'm sending my ailing laptop off to a laptop hospital, and not looking back. If I see a PC from afar, I'll turn the other way and walk off unconcernedly. I. Will. Not. Connect. To. The. Internet.
Next week? We'll see about next week.
Next week? We'll see about next week.
Friday, November 13, 2009
How Deep is the Rot?
The rot of antisemitism at The Guardian, I mean. Well, apparently it's about as deep as you could imagine. Think: the kitchen of the top editor.
CiF Watch will soon be promoted up the ranks of the Elders of Zion for their fine work.
CiF Watch will soon be promoted up the ranks of the Elders of Zion for their fine work.
Vincent van Gogh
There's a new, six volume edition of his letters and drawings: Vincent van Gogh: The Letters: The Complete Illustrated and Annotated Edition (Vol. 1-6)
. A bit pricey, but wonderful, apparently. The Economist gushes:
. A bit pricey, but wonderful, apparently. The Economist gushes:The publication of the six volumes is cause for celebration. To have all the artist’s words together with all those images is like being given a pair of super-special 3D spectacles. The resulting self-portrait has a depth that would not exist were this a collection only of images or only of words. This could be the best autobiography of an artist yet to appear anywhere.You can even go see it all online, free.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Lunatics, Murderers and the Mentally Ill
There are two cases in the headlines this week of murderers who may have had emotional issues. On the one hand there's Major Hassan, a Muslim who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood. The other one is Jack Teital, indicted this morning for two cases of murder and assorted lesser crimes.
Teital is further along in the legal process: there's already an indictment which spells out what the prosecutors know. The Hassan case probably won't reach that stage for many weeks, so there's more room for uninformed public speculation - on blogs, say.
The responses are interesting. Teital lived in an immediate environment - the Shvut Rachel settlement - which contains animosity towards Arabs. The Rachel in the name of the settlement was a young woman murdered on the nearby road, and the settlement was put there in response. The people there are law-abiding citizens, but, yes, they feel at war. Having said that, however, I have yet to hear a single voice even hinting at any form of exoneration for Teital. See this response from some of his wife's family, this morning:
Teital is further along in the legal process: there's already an indictment which spells out what the prosecutors know. The Hassan case probably won't reach that stage for many weeks, so there's more room for uninformed public speculation - on blogs, say.
The responses are interesting. Teital lived in an immediate environment - the Shvut Rachel settlement - which contains animosity towards Arabs. The Rachel in the name of the settlement was a young woman murdered on the nearby road, and the settlement was put there in response. The people there are law-abiding citizens, but, yes, they feel at war. Having said that, however, I have yet to hear a single voice even hinting at any form of exoneration for Teital. See this response from some of his wife's family, this morning:
Avitan reiterated his stand that the family plans to cut itself off from Teitel. "His response at the courtroom this morning proves that the man is disturbed. In any event, we are completely distancing ourselves from this man. A person who does such terrible things should deal with them alone. We have a lot of work to do, each busy rehabilitating our own lives," he said.
Teitel's sister-in-law, Dasi Kreif, commented on the condition of her sister Rivka, the wife of the "Jewish terrorist".
There was no doubt that an indictment would be filed following these terrible actions. We are trying to go on with our lives, but Rivka will have to deal with a great crisis in her life. It will ruin her life. At this stage she refuses to believe as long as she has not met with him privately, looked him in the eye and asked him. Soon she will begin to understand, and it will be very difficult."
Not a word of support for the man or his actions; and even the statement that he's disturbed is a social description, not a medical one. It's intention is derogatory - that man is a lunatic - not exoneration. No-one's saying Teital is a lunatic so not responsible for his actions or anything of the sort. This is as it should be: the man is a murderer and belongs in jail.
Then there is Hassan. Over here you can see how Richard Silverstein and some of his readers already know he's mentally ill; indeed, his illness blocked him from understanding reality. Now, I recognize that Richard and his followers don't represent much - rather like the lunatic fringes of Israeli society don't represent the mainstream. Still, it's interesting to see the degree of bile they're willing to deploy in their race to prove that Hassan is mentally ill and nothing else.
Mental illness, just for the sake of the science, is a horrible thing. The people it afflicts suffer from it hugely. Some manage to live normal lives most of the time, some never manage at all. There have been geniuses with mental illness, though we don't know if there's a connection between the two; perhaps they'd have been even more creative had they not had the illness to cope with. There's the exceedingly rare case where the mental illness may even contribute to greatness - we talked about Abraham Lincoln in this context a few months ago. Rarely, there are people whose illness drives them to violence. But that's very rare, it's not easy to prove, and in any case, no serious person would ever base themselves on some media reports to determine the condition.
Just saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
