As I mentioned yesterday, I'm trying to figure out what's really going on in Sheikh Jarrah. Some of the people I turned to refused to cooperate. Perhaps they have no interest in the simple facts, shorn of slogans. Others, however, were quite helpful.
Here are two resources of interest: Ir Amin has a description of the case here, seen from the Left, and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has a survey here, seen from the Right. (h/t Dror and Joseph).
The more I look into the matter, the more complicated it becomes; this is not only because there's ever more to learn, but also because the story is still happening. Indeed, since there's very little argument left about the West Bank, which everyone knows will eventually become part of Palestine if the Palestinians ever decide they really want sovereignty, Jerusalem is coming into focus as a major issue. However, here's a quick list of things I've learned:
1. Yes, there is legal discrimination. It was never legislated consciously, rather it's a loophole that evolved, but it hasn't been closed, either. Jews who once owned property that was taken over by the Jordanians in Jerusalem have some chance of recovering their property, while Arabs who once owned property that was taken over by the Israelis don't have a track to recover it. I was unaware of this, and am not proud of it now that I know it.
2. Yes there is political discrimination. Jews who purchase property on the market in East Jerusalem will face objections all the way to the President of the United States if they move into their property. Arabs who purchase property on the market in West Jerusalem can move in as soon as the movers are ready, and no-one will object. (Yes, I know such people personally).
3. The people organizations and governments who dislike the intricate legal process in Sheikh Jarrah are not interested in legalities. The Ir Amim report say this explicitly, as do many of their accomplices in effort. They'll use the law if it serves their purposes, or condemn it if it doesn't.
4. There's so much history it makes your head reel. The 4th-century BCE top Jewish leader who chatted with Alexander the Great (he actually probably didn't) lived on the same block as the charismatic Palestinian leader who may have chatted with Adolf Hitler about the need to add the Jews of Mandatory Palestine to the Final Solution (but he probably didn't. He did chat with Himmler, though).
I expect I'll have more on this as we go on. The story is quite alive.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
On Human Imperfection
A few weeks ago the Economist reported on some research which had peered into the mechanisms of powerful men who feel themselves above the law.
Everyone expects this of American senators or junior British ministers. In Israel it used to be career officers, though it seems the army may be well into getting its act together; Haim Ramon was convicted of sexual harassment a few years ago... and of course, we've got a former President on trial for serial rape.
None of which prepared anyone for the case of Rabbi Mordechai Elon, who abruptly disappeared a few years ago amid vague rumors of ill health, and who suddenly this week was unveiled as having harassed at least one or two of his students. Moreover, the unveiling was not done by a police investigation (for whatever reason, there have been no complaints with which to involve the police). Rather, the story was broken by a group of highly respected volunteers who have taken the job of protecting youth from abuses by educators; they call themselves Takana, Correction.
I cannot overemphasize the impact of this story on the Modern Orthodox community in Israel. Everyone I know is reeling. (Here's a story from a former student of Elon that will give you a vague inkling, no more than a shadow). You can't even use the normal platitudes of "maybe it will turn out to be wrong", since then the accusers will have destroyed themselves, which would be an even greater shock.
I know many of the figures in this story, some of them since childhood. There is nothing important that I could say about the case itself, but there are social implications in various directions. I'm posting on this out of a feeling of integrity: I can't lambaste all sorts of worthy targets all the time, but remain silent when the problem is next door (almost literally next door). Once I've had time to work through the social implications, maybe I'll revisit the story.
Everyone expects this of American senators or junior British ministers. In Israel it used to be career officers, though it seems the army may be well into getting its act together; Haim Ramon was convicted of sexual harassment a few years ago... and of course, we've got a former President on trial for serial rape.
None of which prepared anyone for the case of Rabbi Mordechai Elon, who abruptly disappeared a few years ago amid vague rumors of ill health, and who suddenly this week was unveiled as having harassed at least one or two of his students. Moreover, the unveiling was not done by a police investigation (for whatever reason, there have been no complaints with which to involve the police). Rather, the story was broken by a group of highly respected volunteers who have taken the job of protecting youth from abuses by educators; they call themselves Takana, Correction.
I cannot overemphasize the impact of this story on the Modern Orthodox community in Israel. Everyone I know is reeling. (Here's a story from a former student of Elon that will give you a vague inkling, no more than a shadow). You can't even use the normal platitudes of "maybe it will turn out to be wrong", since then the accusers will have destroyed themselves, which would be an even greater shock.
I know many of the figures in this story, some of them since childhood. There is nothing important that I could say about the case itself, but there are social implications in various directions. I'm posting on this out of a feeling of integrity: I can't lambaste all sorts of worthy targets all the time, but remain silent when the problem is next door (almost literally next door). Once I've had time to work through the social implications, maybe I'll revisit the story.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Israel: Flourishing or Suicidal?
There's a fellow in Israel who sits more or less at the center of the so-called human-rights corner of Israeli society, the far-left folks who can find almost nothing good to say about Israel while talking endlessly about all the things it does wrong. As I've often estimated, there aren't more than 2-3,000 of these people, from close to 6 million Jews. Anyway, the fellow has an e-mail list, and he offers daily updates about the good and the bad. While I've never investigated, it's reasonable most of the activists in this radical corner of Israeli society are on his list. Today he announced that he'd just added readers 1000, 1001 and 1002.
Apparently my estimate isn't that far off.
Yet that tiny corner of our society has an enormous impact. How so? Well, look at a post by Andrew Sullivan yesterday, talking about his respect for Jeffrey Goldberg who has been uncomfortably critical of him (Andrew) recently.
Suicide? I think not. But if you're on that e-mail list or listen regularly to the people who are on it, it's not hard to see why you might think otherwise.
Apparently my estimate isn't that far off.
Yet that tiny corner of our society has an enormous impact. How so? Well, look at a post by Andrew Sullivan yesterday, talking about his respect for Jeffrey Goldberg who has been uncomfortably critical of him (Andrew) recently.
I understand what Jeffrey endures on a regular basis and admire his courage in tackling difficult subjects nonetheless. Because he loves Israel; and Israel is committing a slow suicide. It is tough to watch. (my italics).Israel is actually thriving. Economically, of course, but also demographically, culturally, and its politics is informed by a deep consensus of purpose the Americans (or Europeans) can only dream of. The list of things to kvetch about is longer than any imaginable arm, of course, but this shouldn't hide the fact that compared to any given moment over the past 2,000 years, what we've got right now is about as good as it gets.
Suicide? I think not. But if you're on that e-mail list or listen regularly to the people who are on it, it's not hard to see why you might think otherwise.
What is Going on in Sheikh Jarrah?
On the 11th of February the Hebrew edition of Haaretz carried an op-ed by Talia Sasson, a prominent former prosecutor. She seemed to be saying there's a legal loophole that is giving an advantage to Israelis trying to re-acquire pre-1948 property in East Jerusalem over non-Israeli citizens trying to re-acquire pre-1948 property in West Jerusalem, even if they live in Jerusalem. I'm not certain that's what she was saying, in the meantime the article is locked in the Haaretz archive so I can't link to it, and I'm not finding it in English. (If anyone finds it, feel free to post it).
This morning Karni Eldad writes the opposite: that the Jewish owners of pre-1948 property must purchase it a second time in order to claim ownership.
Confused? So am I. I've written to some folks I know who ought to be able to explain the intricacies. If they give me satisfactory answers I'll post them, whether their answers are what I'd prefer or not.
This morning Karni Eldad writes the opposite: that the Jewish owners of pre-1948 property must purchase it a second time in order to claim ownership.
Confused? So am I. I've written to some folks I know who ought to be able to explain the intricacies. If they give me satisfactory answers I'll post them, whether their answers are what I'd prefer or not.
Mossad? Well, I Certainly Hope So.
Here's a story I heard long ago, as a graduate student. A famous historian approaches the archivist at the Public Record Office (that's what they used to call the British National Archives) and asks to see some files about MI5 (or was it MI6?). The scandalized archivist glares at him, and says that MI5 is a fictitious agency, it doesn't really exist and certainly has no documents in the PRO. Ah, says the professor, That's interesting. You see, I've got this document from the American National Archives in Washington, in which the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) is corresponding with MI5 (or was it MI6?), and I thought I'd like to see the full context from the British perspective, too.
In the meantime the Brits have fessed up that there actually is an MI5 (and also an MI6). If you think we now know all about their escapades, well, I certainly hope not.
Lots of media outlets are all in a tizzy this week about the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh recently in a hotel room in Dubai (Times, Guardian, BBC, NYT). Haaretz is in the same tizzy, with two opposing op-eds this morning. Amir Oren effectively says he know the Mossad did it, and calls for the resignation of Mossad chief Meir Dagan for screwing up the aftermath of the otherwise successful operation. Yossi Melman keeps his cool, and expects no governments will do anything about it that might effect Israel; it's not as if Hamas is real popular.
If you expect to learn anything new about the case here, you're way off. I know nothing more than the rest of you, which means, almost nothing. There seems no way to spin the dead man into a saintly character who gave candy to street urchins in Bombay, and the world is probably a teeny bit better for his departure, no matter who made it happen. If the Mossad doesn't do this sort of thing from time to time, their chief really ought to resign. We're at war, and an enemy has been killed; no civilians were even scratched. Good. If someone else did it, but the Mossad's reputation for lethality has been enhanced because of past cases, even better. In that case, the BBC and Guardian are doing Israel's work for it. Heh.
In the meantime the Brits have fessed up that there actually is an MI5 (and also an MI6). If you think we now know all about their escapades, well, I certainly hope not.
Lots of media outlets are all in a tizzy this week about the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh recently in a hotel room in Dubai (Times, Guardian, BBC, NYT). Haaretz is in the same tizzy, with two opposing op-eds this morning. Amir Oren effectively says he know the Mossad did it, and calls for the resignation of Mossad chief Meir Dagan for screwing up the aftermath of the otherwise successful operation. Yossi Melman keeps his cool, and expects no governments will do anything about it that might effect Israel; it's not as if Hamas is real popular.
If you expect to learn anything new about the case here, you're way off. I know nothing more than the rest of you, which means, almost nothing. There seems no way to spin the dead man into a saintly character who gave candy to street urchins in Bombay, and the world is probably a teeny bit better for his departure, no matter who made it happen. If the Mossad doesn't do this sort of thing from time to time, their chief really ought to resign. We're at war, and an enemy has been killed; no civilians were even scratched. Good. If someone else did it, but the Mossad's reputation for lethality has been enhanced because of past cases, even better. In that case, the BBC and Guardian are doing Israel's work for it. Heh.
Zeitgeist, or Being Lemmings
We're in the process of exchanging cars this week. We're getting rid of a Toyota, and acquiring a Ford. Let no one accuse us of not following trends.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Victor's New Blog
Regular readers will be familiar with Victor, who often comments on this blog from his rather unusual perspective (Soviet born, lives in the American Midwest, has connections with Chabad and may even be one, works at a place I can't figure out, sometime chides me for not being right-wing enough, and so on.)
Well, he recently started his own blog: so go yee, and enjoy...
Well, he recently started his own blog: so go yee, and enjoy...
Learning About War
The more stories such as this one appear in the media, the more likely it is that reasonable regular sort of folks, the ones who aren't animated by this ideology or that, will begin to understand how war is waged these days. The more mainstream people understand this, the less audience there will be for the Goldtone reporters of the world. People will glance at their narrative, recognize how detached it is from reality, and move on. Remember how back in 2001, every Israeli targeted assassination of an enemy was automatically tagged as a breach of international law? Hard to image these days, isn't it, when targeted assassinations are the most commonly used tool of the Americans and their allies.
Close to the road and relative safety, soldiers saw a man in black walking. He was unarmed. They watched him in their scopes but did not shoot. Western forces in Afghanistan are operating under rules of engagement, or ROE, that restrict them from acting against people unless they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent. American troops say the Taliban can fire on them, then set aside their weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. "The inability to stop people who don't have weapons is the main hindrance right now," McMahon said after the firefight. "They know how to use our ROE against us." (h/t Silke)
Surviving Adversity
Many of Israel's enemies, including some home-grown ones, seem to feel that if enough pressure is brought to bear on the Jews, they'll give up on their national project and move "back" to where-ever, so long as it's far away. This is an odd preposition, with no evidence to back it up, but it seems to keep the Palestinians and many other Arabs hoping, and they undoubtedly garner satisfaction from Westerners and Jews who tell them eventually it'll work.
In week or two the Daf Yomi folks will pass this story, about obstinate perseverance in the face of the military might of the most powerful empire of the day, Rome. Many Jews grew up on the story, but in these days of limited Jewish education, perhaps many others haven't. I'm reasonably certain many of Israel's enemies don't know the story or the tradition it fits into, which is regrettable since they clearly underestimate how obstinate we can be. The story took place in the decade of 135-145 CE, most likely.
The Gemarah is discussing how judges are appointed, and they're examining the rule that only judges who have been accredited by three previously accredited judges may set fines.
-Really? So how to explain the story told by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav? [Here's the story]
Blessed is the memory of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, for if not him, the laws of fines would have been forgotten.
- How forgotten? They could have been re-learned?
- Rather, the authority to apply them would have been abolished. Once the Roman rulers decreed that anyone who accredited judges [the word is smicha] would be killed, and anyone who received smicha would be killed, and any town where smicha was done would be destroyed, and any county were smicha happened would be razed. What did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava do? He went to an empty spot between two mountains, between two towns between two counties in the area between Usha and Shfar'am, and there he did smicha for five scholars: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi ELiezer ben Shamua. Rav Avaya adds Rabbi Nechemia to the list. When they realized they'd been seen by the enemy, he said to them, Run, my sons! What will happen to you, they cried. He told them, I'm here like an unturned stone [perhaps this means I won't run, and they'll kill me but I won't feel it, as a stone feels no pain]. The Roman soldiers didn't let up until they had stabbed him with 300 spears.
The Gemarah isn't convinced: there were two additional judges there, but the story doesn't mention them because they were less important than Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava [so the story doesn't prove that a single judge can give smicha]
Another problem with the story:
Was Rabbi Meir accredited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? Didn't Raba bar bar Hana teach us in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Anyone who says Rabbi Meir wasn't given smicha by Rabbi Akiva, has it all wrong!
The Gemarah explains: Rabbi Akiva did give Rabbi Meir smicha, but he was too young at the time and it wasn't recognized, so he had to be given smicha again, this time by Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.
The spot where this took place is still empty; you cross it when you take Route 6 north of the Barkai junction. Shfaram is an Arab-Druze town by the same name; Usha is a Jewish village.
[The daf Yomi thread starts and is explained here]
In week or two the Daf Yomi folks will pass this story, about obstinate perseverance in the face of the military might of the most powerful empire of the day, Rome. Many Jews grew up on the story, but in these days of limited Jewish education, perhaps many others haven't. I'm reasonably certain many of Israel's enemies don't know the story or the tradition it fits into, which is regrettable since they clearly underestimate how obstinate we can be. The story took place in the decade of 135-145 CE, most likely.
The Gemarah is discussing how judges are appointed, and they're examining the rule that only judges who have been accredited by three previously accredited judges may set fines.
-Really? So how to explain the story told by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav? [Here's the story]
Blessed is the memory of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, for if not him, the laws of fines would have been forgotten.
- How forgotten? They could have been re-learned?
- Rather, the authority to apply them would have been abolished. Once the Roman rulers decreed that anyone who accredited judges [the word is smicha] would be killed, and anyone who received smicha would be killed, and any town where smicha was done would be destroyed, and any county were smicha happened would be razed. What did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava do? He went to an empty spot between two mountains, between two towns between two counties in the area between Usha and Shfar'am, and there he did smicha for five scholars: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi ELiezer ben Shamua. Rav Avaya adds Rabbi Nechemia to the list. When they realized they'd been seen by the enemy, he said to them, Run, my sons! What will happen to you, they cried. He told them, I'm here like an unturned stone [perhaps this means I won't run, and they'll kill me but I won't feel it, as a stone feels no pain]. The Roman soldiers didn't let up until they had stabbed him with 300 spears.
The Gemarah isn't convinced: there were two additional judges there, but the story doesn't mention them because they were less important than Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava [so the story doesn't prove that a single judge can give smicha]
Another problem with the story:
Was Rabbi Meir accredited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? Didn't Raba bar bar Hana teach us in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Anyone who says Rabbi Meir wasn't given smicha by Rabbi Akiva, has it all wrong!
The Gemarah explains: Rabbi Akiva did give Rabbi Meir smicha, but he was too young at the time and it wasn't recognized, so he had to be given smicha again, this time by Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.
The spot where this took place is still empty; you cross it when you take Route 6 north of the Barkai junction. Shfaram is an Arab-Druze town by the same name; Usha is a Jewish village.
[The daf Yomi thread starts and is explained here]
History Never Stops
And since it never stops, stories are rarely "over". For an extreme example, think of the poor Romans who thought they'd finally finished the story of those pesky Jews, back in the days of Hadrian. Guess they were wrong, huh?
On a vastly smaller scale, here's a fascinating story that Stephen Farrell of the NYT dug up in his newspaper's archive: Apparently the town the Americans and others are battling in this week, Marja, was invented a mere 50-some years ago. By well-meaning Americans. Also Nad-i-Ali, where an American missile accidentally killed 12 civilians two days ago. Wesley Morgan, a young man moonlighting for the NYT in the battle zone, follows up on Farrell's story with real-life evidence.
Fascinating.
Farrell's story is then commented on by lots of readers, who go through the usual gamut of navel-gazing we're-the-center-of-the-world introspection: history happens because Americans are nice, or because they're not nice, and so on. So predictable, so uninformed, so uninterested in history... and so boring.
On a vastly smaller scale, here's a fascinating story that Stephen Farrell of the NYT dug up in his newspaper's archive: Apparently the town the Americans and others are battling in this week, Marja, was invented a mere 50-some years ago. By well-meaning Americans. Also Nad-i-Ali, where an American missile accidentally killed 12 civilians two days ago. Wesley Morgan, a young man moonlighting for the NYT in the battle zone, follows up on Farrell's story with real-life evidence.
Fascinating.
Farrell's story is then commented on by lots of readers, who go through the usual gamut of navel-gazing we're-the-center-of-the-world introspection: history happens because Americans are nice, or because they're not nice, and so on. So predictable, so uninformed, so uninterested in history... and so boring.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Arrest Me if You Dare
The London Times speculates that Tzipi Livni is mulling a trip to the UK to provoke her arrest on war crimes charges.
How long would she sit in the clinker - a day? 6 hours? Her popularity would go stratospheric (due disclosure: I voted for her), the UK leaders presiding over the war in Aghanistan in which civilians are tragically being killed would be shamed to change their silly rules, Netanyahu would be forced to praise her (hee hee), and she'd still be home before Shabbat.
Sounds like a fine publicity stunt to me.
How long would she sit in the clinker - a day? 6 hours? Her popularity would go stratospheric (due disclosure: I voted for her), the UK leaders presiding over the war in Aghanistan in which civilians are tragically being killed would be shamed to change their silly rules, Netanyahu would be forced to praise her (hee hee), and she'd still be home before Shabbat.
Sounds like a fine publicity stunt to me.
A Lethal Obsession
Robert Wistrich is the archetype of the scholar. He speaks English with an Oxford accent, Hebrew like a Sabra, German like a yekke, and his French and Russian sound to me fully convincing. He probably speaks some additional languages, too. He has read any book or article relevant to his field, and the field is rather broad. He has written something like 20 books.
His newest book,A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad
just came out last month. It's more than a thousand pages long. The other day I saw a copy, and you wouldn't wish it to fall on your toe.
In spite of the title, it apparently focuses not on the longevity of Jew hatred, but on its post-Holocaust vitality. Anyone who wishes to speak with authority on this topic, must read the book, even though it will take a bit of effort. That's how one acquires authority: by working at it.
If you'd like to know about the thesis without the major effort, here's a fine review by Jeffrey Herf. (h/t Silke)
His newest book,A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad
just came out last month. It's more than a thousand pages long. The other day I saw a copy, and you wouldn't wish it to fall on your toe.In spite of the title, it apparently focuses not on the longevity of Jew hatred, but on its post-Holocaust vitality. Anyone who wishes to speak with authority on this topic, must read the book, even though it will take a bit of effort. That's how one acquires authority: by working at it.
If you'd like to know about the thesis without the major effort, here's a fine review by Jeffrey Herf. (h/t Silke)
When Hitler made his famous threat to exterminate Europe’s Jews in 1939, many Western political observers did not believe he meant what he said. It was too incredible and without precedent. No political leader before had so bluntly and publicly announced his intention to engage in mass murder. And so the disgust that greeted Hitler was mixed with disbelief. But the leaders of our own time do not have the excuse of incredulity. As much as any historian can, Robert Wistrich has documented the fact that radical anti-Semitism is in earnest, that its geographic and cultural center of gravity has shifted, and that it has again become a factor in world politics. The advocates of this disgusting doctrine have the power from which to make good on their threats.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
IDF and HRW
The IDF is working with Human Rights Watch to figure out what really happened in Gaza last year. There are apparently a number of cases where HRW made allegations about cases the IDF wasn't aware of, or had different versions, so the IDF is working with HRW to gain access to their sources, including Palestinians.
This is a win-win situation. If the detailed investigations exonerate the IDF, HRW will have participated in the effort and won't be able to complain. If cases of wrong-doing are identified, the IDF will learn from them, as it learns from everything it does. If anyone needs to be brought to justice, that will happen, too.
I like it.
This is a win-win situation. If the detailed investigations exonerate the IDF, HRW will have participated in the effort and won't be able to complain. If cases of wrong-doing are identified, the IDF will learn from them, as it learns from everything it does. If anyone needs to be brought to justice, that will happen, too.
I like it.
Years, if Needed
The American-led assault on the Taliban in Marjah, Afghanistan, is expected to take weeks to be completed. We hope it will be successful, of course, that's the only possible position to have.
Yet another difference between how Israel wages its wars and others do so. Can anyone conceive of the UN Security Council convening anytime soon to demand a cease fire in Afghanistan? Of American generals planning and executing their wars with the certainly that they've got days, or a few weeks at the most, in which to achieves their goals, before the international community shut them down?
Yet another difference between how Israel wages its wars and others do so. Can anyone conceive of the UN Security Council convening anytime soon to demand a cease fire in Afghanistan? Of American generals planning and executing their wars with the certainly that they've got days, or a few weeks at the most, in which to achieves their goals, before the international community shut them down?
Even Informed, There's Perspective
Unlike Andrew Sullivan, Jeffrey Goldberg is informed about the Middle East. Far more than most observers, what with his full control of Hebrew and Arabic and his constant following of the story. Yet for all that, living in Washington DC eventually gives him a perspective of someone who lives in Washington, not Jerusalem. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but after a while it shows. His take on the NIF story last week looks at the American side of the NIF, less the Israeli NIF NGOs and their malice... which after all was what the story was all about.
Even more pronounced was his post citing one Blake Hounshell in the aftermath of last week's events (Sullivan and NIF, all). Titled How the Likud's Agenda Alienates Americans, Jeffrey approvingly cites an item by Hounshell.
Here's Hounshell:
Since Rabin in the 90s, Israel has had the following prime ministers, who had the following take on how the conflict with the Palestinians might be either resolved, or at least managed if resolution is impossible, as most Israelis are convinced, even though this means it's they (and the Palestinians) who aren't going to have peace:
Shimon Peres, 1995-96. Considerably more dovish than Rabin, and elected out of office because he was refusing to recognize that the Palestinians weren't using the same rulebook.
Binyamin Netanyahu, 1996-1999, elected only after changing the Likud's platform to acquiesce in partition as the way to resolve the conflict (i.e repudiating Greater Israel).
Ehud Barak, 1999-2000, elected on the clear platform of negotiating a partition with the Palestinians, he offered to dismantle some 80% of the settlements in the summer of 2000, and was praised for this by Bill Clinton.
Ariel Sharon, 2001-(Dec) 2005, initially elected to defeat the 2nd Intifada, not negotiate with Arafat, in 2005 Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza while dismantling 23 settlements, then split the Likud and set up Kadima so as to continue the partition on the West Bank.
Ehud Olmert, 2006-2009, Olmert was elected in 2006 on an explicit promise to disband settlements and evacuate Israel from most of the West Bank, even if the Palestinians wouldn't give peace in return. This intention was derailed by the 2nd Lebanon war, yet by September 2008 Olmert was offering the Palestinians more than they had ever been offered, including an effective 100% of the West Bank or adjacent areas and partition of Jerusalem.
2009-- Binyamin Netanyahu indeed doesn't look like your run-of-the-mill NIF activist, yet he has openly accepted partition as the way to reach a two-state solution.
The way I see it, Mr. Hounshell, you've got the Israeli electorate exactly wrong; meanwhile, Jeffrey is suggesting an Israeli leader do what almost all of their elected leaders of the past decade-plus have already done. Moreover, they've been repeatedly endorsed in doing so by the electorate.
Things look different from Jerusalem, you see.
On a resigned note: if Hounshell and Goldberg are right that the differing perspectives are eroding American support for Israel, it looks like Israel will have to figure out ways of replacing the eroding support. Given that we're already doing what they say we must do, and it's not being seen.
Even more pronounced was his post citing one Blake Hounshell in the aftermath of last week's events (Sullivan and NIF, all). Titled How the Likud's Agenda Alienates Americans, Jeffrey approvingly cites an item by Hounshell.
Here's Hounshell:
Sullivan's criticism of Israel ought to worry defenders of the Jewish state, then, because he is a bellwether for a broader shift in American media and society that has happened over the last few years. Israel is using up a lot of the goodwill it had built up in the 1990s, when eminent statesmen like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres made good-faith efforts toward peace with the Palestinians. Since then, the country has been governed by a series of unimaginative right-wing leaders who have pandered constantly to their settler base and chosen to solve political problems through the use of force. Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party may have their fingers on the pulse of their public right now, but their agenda is not one that appeals to most Americans, who strongly support Israel's right to exist but have little interest in underwriting the permanent occupation of the West Bank.And here's Jeffrey filling out the thought:
What Israel needs is a leader who will step forward and say, "Here is the way things should look," and then present an outline for the creation of a viable Palestine. The settlers will go nuts, but that's what they do. Hamas will go nuts, because that's what it does. But Hounshell is right: What is needed is a Rabin. I tend to think that Netanyahu has the potential to be this leader. Maybe it's more a hope than a reality at this point, but only someone from the right can bring the majority of Israelis to the painful compromises that are obviously necessary. And, to make the obvious point, one of the reasons this compromise is necessary is because American public opinion is one of Israel's most important battlegrounds.Well, no.
Since Rabin in the 90s, Israel has had the following prime ministers, who had the following take on how the conflict with the Palestinians might be either resolved, or at least managed if resolution is impossible, as most Israelis are convinced, even though this means it's they (and the Palestinians) who aren't going to have peace:
Shimon Peres, 1995-96. Considerably more dovish than Rabin, and elected out of office because he was refusing to recognize that the Palestinians weren't using the same rulebook.
Binyamin Netanyahu, 1996-1999, elected only after changing the Likud's platform to acquiesce in partition as the way to resolve the conflict (i.e repudiating Greater Israel).
Ehud Barak, 1999-2000, elected on the clear platform of negotiating a partition with the Palestinians, he offered to dismantle some 80% of the settlements in the summer of 2000, and was praised for this by Bill Clinton.
Ariel Sharon, 2001-(Dec) 2005, initially elected to defeat the 2nd Intifada, not negotiate with Arafat, in 2005 Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza while dismantling 23 settlements, then split the Likud and set up Kadima so as to continue the partition on the West Bank.
Ehud Olmert, 2006-2009, Olmert was elected in 2006 on an explicit promise to disband settlements and evacuate Israel from most of the West Bank, even if the Palestinians wouldn't give peace in return. This intention was derailed by the 2nd Lebanon war, yet by September 2008 Olmert was offering the Palestinians more than they had ever been offered, including an effective 100% of the West Bank or adjacent areas and partition of Jerusalem.
2009-- Binyamin Netanyahu indeed doesn't look like your run-of-the-mill NIF activist, yet he has openly accepted partition as the way to reach a two-state solution.
The way I see it, Mr. Hounshell, you've got the Israeli electorate exactly wrong; meanwhile, Jeffrey is suggesting an Israeli leader do what almost all of their elected leaders of the past decade-plus have already done. Moreover, they've been repeatedly endorsed in doing so by the electorate.
Things look different from Jerusalem, you see.
On a resigned note: if Hounshell and Goldberg are right that the differing perspectives are eroding American support for Israel, it looks like Israel will have to figure out ways of replacing the eroding support. Given that we're already doing what they say we must do, and it's not being seen.
Being Informed: not Neccessary
Thanks to all the readers who ran the interesting discussions while I was gone. We'll practice this another few times in the coming weeks or months, after which I'll be able to retire from blogging and y'all can carry on without me. I look forward to it.
Also while I was away, Jeffrey Goldberg ruminated a few times on the Wieseltier-Sullivan spat. If you read carefully I think you may pick up hints that Jeffrey has less patience for Andrew than he used to, but I may be over-reacting.
Jeffrey's single most interesting comment, to my mind, is this one:
Also while I was away, Jeffrey Goldberg ruminated a few times on the Wieseltier-Sullivan spat. If you read carefully I think you may pick up hints that Jeffrey has less patience for Andrew than he used to, but I may be over-reacting.
Jeffrey's single most interesting comment, to my mind, is this one:
6) One other thing: Andrew Sullivan doesn't know that much about the Middle East. I know that sounds odd, given that he is a former editor of The New Republic, but there you have it. One of the many reasons I don't engage his blog more frequently on matters relating to the Middle East is that he's not very knowledgeable about the intricacies of the American-led peace process, or of internal Israeli politics, or internal Palestinian politics. This might be because these issues don't interest him. The politics, contradictions and motivations of Netanyahu's approach to Obama do not interest Andrew. Netanyahu's apparently self-evident evilness is what interests Andrew. Extremists on both sides of the issue want the Middle East to be simple, but it's not. The Middle East is a tragedy precisely because the Israelis have an excellent case, and the Arabs also have an excellent case. This essential fact has often escaped Andrew's attention.The point ought to be broadened, of course: Most people don't know very much about the Middle East, foremost among them most of the folks who talk about it incessantly.
Grandmothers can be Antisemites, Too
This one's name is Jenny Tonge, she's a British politician from the Lib-Dem party, a Baroness in the House of Lords, she's got a history of animosity towards Israel, but this time she's gone overboard even by the sordid standards of British Lefties:The latest row followed accusations in the online Palestine Telegraph – of which she is a patron – that members of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) had been harvesting body parts in Haiti. She subsequently told the Jewish Chronicle: "To prevent allegations such as these – which have already been posted on YouTube – going any further, the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independent inquiry immediately to clear the names of the team in Haiti."
It's an interesting provenance: a Palestinian website invents an outlandish anti-Jewish calumny out of thin air. A British Baroness who's one of their ardent supporters picks it up and runs with it, while professing earnest concern for the objects of the calumny by recommending they must clear their name (since it's already being besmirched on YouTube). How touching.
In Hebrew there's a saying "Prove you don't have a sister", which was invented for this type of logic. Note that she doesn't suggest the Palestinians bring evidence that the Israelis might refute. That's not how calumnies work.
In this case, the allegations are so blatant her political boss has been forced to distance himself. Even her own group can't stomach her fanaticism. For all that, she's such a nice-looking grandmotherly type, the kind of nice lady you'd be eager to have over for tea. Antisemites - as I never tire of saying - don't generally have horns nor do they froth at the mouth. They can often be found deep in respectable society; what could be more respectable than the UK House of Lords after all.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
More on Goldstone
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) has had a second look at the Irish member of the Goldstone team, Colonel Desmond Travers. Not surprisingly, it's not pretty. The British government is controlled by the Jews, Hamas wasn't shooting at Israelis, Palestinians have no connection to Hamas, and the IDF chose which Gazan homes to bomb only after using secret weapons which identify civilians, and always preferring the ones where there were lots of them.
Haaretz has the story here, and JCPA has it here.
Haaretz has the story here, and JCPA has it here.
More on Complexity
Earlier this week much ink was spilled documenting how the NIF organizations are simultaneously forces for good and evil. Avi Issacharoff says the same about the Palestinian Authority, the PA: They're doing great work these past couple years; and also some very problematic things that undermine the likelihood of peace. The same people and the same organizations, all at the same time.
More on the NIF
Israel Harel - the Right-wing fig leaf at Haareta, as Naomi Hazan was the Left-wing fig leaf at the Jerusalem Post - doesn't like the NIF. He backs this up with some interesting data, none of it related to the Goldstone Report.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Chaim K. RIP
Chaim K. passed away late Saturday afternoon. He was 87 - not that you'd know it by watching the callers making condolence calls at his Shiva this week, some of whom are quite some years younger than his older grandchildren. "You don't know us", they tell his children, "but we were friends of your father. Such a luminous man!"
Chaim was born in a small Polish town no-one has ever heard of. He was 17 when the Nazis invaded, and his entire immediate family fled East, eventually washing up in what is today Kazakhstan. They spent the war years in what were combination refugee-and-labor camps. His father starved to death, but the rest of them survived. In later years his sister (who died a few years ago at 91) reminisced that Chaim would combat his hunger by reading whatever he could get his hands on until he fell asleep from exhaustion, thereby managing to do without a meal.
Also in the camps he met his future wife, "she didn't even own a pair of shoes". Chaim was good at cobbling things together, and managed to help her survive the hardships.
After the war they went back to Poland. None of her family had survived; there was no point in trying to rebuild lives in Poland, and by 1948 they were in Israel.
Arriving in war-torn Jerusalem in 1948 they found accommodations with a cousin who lived in Batei Ungarn, near Mea Shearim. The cousin had seven children in two rooms, but since it was crowded anyway, why not take in the newcomers? No long afterward Chaim found an abandoned two-room house on the wrong side of the barbed-wire fences which marked the new border that ran through the city. A block or two from Sheikh Jarrah, if you insist on details. The building was functionally in No-Man's Land between Israel and Jordan, but there was an IDF position on its roof; the troops reached the second floor through a trapdoor from one of the rooms. Still, it was better than the place in Batei Ungarn, so Chaim, his sister and their spouses moved in. No-one ever came to visit them at their house beyond the border, and the troops on the roof occasionally had fire-fights with Jordanian troops, but worse things can happen. Chaim and Gittl had three children there.
In 1960 they moved. Chaim was making a good living as an accountant, and they were able to afford a brand new 2-1/2 room apartment in the Katamon area. When they first moved in the 70-square meter place looked so impossibly spacious that they considered renting one room, or perhaps simply sealing it off for visitors. They remained for the rest of their lives (Gittl died two years ago this week). They had three children, 11 grandchildren, and right now there are 16 great grandchildren, with the 17th expected in two months. The youngest two grandsons, at 19, are hardly older than the oldest of the great grandchildren (17).
20-some years ago, as Chaim should have been about to retire, he was offered the challenge of setting up the financial department in one of the large settlements. He thought about it for a day or two, and took the job, which he held until he was in his late 70s. Even then he retained his position as one of the stalwarts of his synagogue, and as the accountant of a local charity; two days before he died he transferred all the details of the charity to his son. In recent weeks he has no longer been able to participate in his daf yomi study group (9:30 am, the "old codgers' group") so one of the others came to him each day to learn, all the way until the end.
Have I mentioned he was a nice man? Always smiling, often with a Yiddish joke, relating to people as equals. His son is the boss of one of our public utilities. A few weeks ago I met the two of them, the son supporting his father on the way to the synagogue; the father dressed, as usual, in his suit, tie and fedora even though he could walk only with the greatest effort. I pointed to the street we were standing on, where the son's company has been digging these past two months: "Chaim, can you please tell the boss of the company they really ought to fix this street already?!" He beamed and said he'd try.
Yesterday they paved the street and it looks spanking new. "He did it", I told his son. "He got it fixed".
Fifty years in a single neighborhood is quite a while, and alongside the unexpected mourners I told of above, the surviving old-timers are coming to pay their respects. The neighborhood was originally built by rich (mostly Christian) Arabs in the 1920s, when Chaim was a boy in that forgotten Polish town; it was sparsely populated, with large detached houses. In the 40s, as he fought his hunger, lots of important British officers and officials moved in. Once the Arabs and British were gone, it was filled with the Jews who had been deported from the Old City, two miles to the north, after the Jordanians took it over. Then in the 1950s, the mostly empty hillsides were built up with apartment buildings for the large numbers of refugees and immigrants pouring into Israel and living mostly in tents. Only in the 1990s did it begin to change again, so that today there's a large population of wealthy British and French Jews moving away from the rising antisemitism in their countries, and rich Americans not fleeing from anyone - and upper middle class Israelis, too.
Sit in the tiny apartment Chaim died in the other day, however, and you'll be reminded of the people who dominated the area for 40 years. The Lithuanian Holocaust survivor; the Polish one; the two Moroccans, the Iraqi; the man from the Old City whose father and brother-in-law fell in its battle; the 68-year-old Yekke (German Jew) who's father disagreed with Chaim about what sort of synagogue they needed, 50 years ago, so each built his own, and each sometime came to the other's.
You can see a lot of history in 87 years.
Chaim was born in a small Polish town no-one has ever heard of. He was 17 when the Nazis invaded, and his entire immediate family fled East, eventually washing up in what is today Kazakhstan. They spent the war years in what were combination refugee-and-labor camps. His father starved to death, but the rest of them survived. In later years his sister (who died a few years ago at 91) reminisced that Chaim would combat his hunger by reading whatever he could get his hands on until he fell asleep from exhaustion, thereby managing to do without a meal.
Also in the camps he met his future wife, "she didn't even own a pair of shoes". Chaim was good at cobbling things together, and managed to help her survive the hardships.
After the war they went back to Poland. None of her family had survived; there was no point in trying to rebuild lives in Poland, and by 1948 they were in Israel.
Arriving in war-torn Jerusalem in 1948 they found accommodations with a cousin who lived in Batei Ungarn, near Mea Shearim. The cousin had seven children in two rooms, but since it was crowded anyway, why not take in the newcomers? No long afterward Chaim found an abandoned two-room house on the wrong side of the barbed-wire fences which marked the new border that ran through the city. A block or two from Sheikh Jarrah, if you insist on details. The building was functionally in No-Man's Land between Israel and Jordan, but there was an IDF position on its roof; the troops reached the second floor through a trapdoor from one of the rooms. Still, it was better than the place in Batei Ungarn, so Chaim, his sister and their spouses moved in. No-one ever came to visit them at their house beyond the border, and the troops on the roof occasionally had fire-fights with Jordanian troops, but worse things can happen. Chaim and Gittl had three children there.
In 1960 they moved. Chaim was making a good living as an accountant, and they were able to afford a brand new 2-1/2 room apartment in the Katamon area. When they first moved in the 70-square meter place looked so impossibly spacious that they considered renting one room, or perhaps simply sealing it off for visitors. They remained for the rest of their lives (Gittl died two years ago this week). They had three children, 11 grandchildren, and right now there are 16 great grandchildren, with the 17th expected in two months. The youngest two grandsons, at 19, are hardly older than the oldest of the great grandchildren (17).
20-some years ago, as Chaim should have been about to retire, he was offered the challenge of setting up the financial department in one of the large settlements. He thought about it for a day or two, and took the job, which he held until he was in his late 70s. Even then he retained his position as one of the stalwarts of his synagogue, and as the accountant of a local charity; two days before he died he transferred all the details of the charity to his son. In recent weeks he has no longer been able to participate in his daf yomi study group (9:30 am, the "old codgers' group") so one of the others came to him each day to learn, all the way until the end.
Have I mentioned he was a nice man? Always smiling, often with a Yiddish joke, relating to people as equals. His son is the boss of one of our public utilities. A few weeks ago I met the two of them, the son supporting his father on the way to the synagogue; the father dressed, as usual, in his suit, tie and fedora even though he could walk only with the greatest effort. I pointed to the street we were standing on, where the son's company has been digging these past two months: "Chaim, can you please tell the boss of the company they really ought to fix this street already?!" He beamed and said he'd try.
Yesterday they paved the street and it looks spanking new. "He did it", I told his son. "He got it fixed".
Fifty years in a single neighborhood is quite a while, and alongside the unexpected mourners I told of above, the surviving old-timers are coming to pay their respects. The neighborhood was originally built by rich (mostly Christian) Arabs in the 1920s, when Chaim was a boy in that forgotten Polish town; it was sparsely populated, with large detached houses. In the 40s, as he fought his hunger, lots of important British officers and officials moved in. Once the Arabs and British were gone, it was filled with the Jews who had been deported from the Old City, two miles to the north, after the Jordanians took it over. Then in the 1950s, the mostly empty hillsides were built up with apartment buildings for the large numbers of refugees and immigrants pouring into Israel and living mostly in tents. Only in the 1990s did it begin to change again, so that today there's a large population of wealthy British and French Jews moving away from the rising antisemitism in their countries, and rich Americans not fleeing from anyone - and upper middle class Israelis, too.
Sit in the tiny apartment Chaim died in the other day, however, and you'll be reminded of the people who dominated the area for 40 years. The Lithuanian Holocaust survivor; the Polish one; the two Moroccans, the Iraqi; the man from the Old City whose father and brother-in-law fell in its battle; the 68-year-old Yekke (German Jew) who's father disagreed with Chaim about what sort of synagogue they needed, 50 years ago, so each built his own, and each sometime came to the other's.
You can see a lot of history in 87 years.
Antisemitism as a Matter of Time?
Leon Wieseltier is one of the finest wordsmiths in American public discourse. Yesterday he published a column about his former colleague at The New Republic, Andrew Sullivan. (h/t Silke). It's not his finest column, not even close, which is too bad. Perhaps the relationships between the two men interfered in one way or another; we can't know.
Very briefly, Wieseltier says that tropes Andrew uses these days about Israel are antisemitic. He doesn't come out and say Andrew is, mind you, but he circles around the idea.
Jonathan Chait, another TNR fellow, today responds to Wieseltier by stating emphatically that "Andrew is not an Anti-semite". Chait disagrees with him on Israel, but knows him not to be an antisemite.
Andrew himself relates to the matter from time to time, always to profess his innocence of antisemitism.
From what I can see, he really isn't one. Not yet. Which isn't to say he won't become one. That, after all, is what makes the history of antisemitism so lethal: that people can join (and also leave). If hatred of the Jews were stable, and individuals either were or were not for their entire lives, it would be easier to contain. It isn't. People can be free of the affliction and later die from it; they can be afflicted and cured; they can be latently antisemitic then actively so, then again latent. So long as they are free to think, people can change their minds in whatever direction they change them in.
Is Andrew on the way to becoming an antisemite? It's possible. He's already using antisemitic types of expression, as Wieseltier shows, and as any sustained reading of his popular blog will demonstrate.
Very briefly, Wieseltier says that tropes Andrew uses these days about Israel are antisemitic. He doesn't come out and say Andrew is, mind you, but he circles around the idea.
Jonathan Chait, another TNR fellow, today responds to Wieseltier by stating emphatically that "Andrew is not an Anti-semite". Chait disagrees with him on Israel, but knows him not to be an antisemite.
Andrew himself relates to the matter from time to time, always to profess his innocence of antisemitism.
From what I can see, he really isn't one. Not yet. Which isn't to say he won't become one. That, after all, is what makes the history of antisemitism so lethal: that people can join (and also leave). If hatred of the Jews were stable, and individuals either were or were not for their entire lives, it would be easier to contain. It isn't. People can be free of the affliction and later die from it; they can be afflicted and cured; they can be latently antisemitic then actively so, then again latent. So long as they are free to think, people can change their minds in whatever direction they change them in.
Is Andrew on the way to becoming an antisemite? It's possible. He's already using antisemitic types of expression, as Wieseltier shows, and as any sustained reading of his popular blog will demonstrate.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Response to Naomi Paiss
Ben Murane of the NIF has been replaced on this blog by Naomi Paiss, who is probably his boss. I'm again moving the discussion to the front page of the blog (from here), since it remains too important for the comments section. (For those wearying of the topic, I don't expect this to continue dominating the blog for much longer, so hang in there).
Hi Naomi, thanks for coming by. I appreciate it.
At the heart of the discussion is a dichotomy, a profound ambivalence. On the one hand, you've got organizations committed to preserving or enhancing democratic freedoms in Israel, and warning and guarding against transgressions or even simple human weaknesses that might erode Israeli society. On the other hand, you've got organizations serving as crucial conveyor belts of twisted, warped and dishonest statements about Israel, from a complex society that lives in Hebrew (and some Arabic, Russian, and many other languages) into the hands of Israel's avowed enemies. The individuals and organizations engaged in the first, legitimate and valuable activities, are sometimes (too often) the exact same people and organizations serving as the conveyor belt in the second.
Let me qualify the observation, before strengthening it. Israel faces two sorts of enemies. The worst are the ones willing (sometimes eager) to destroy the Jews in their homeland. The shooting enemies, the ones who kill Jews, or not, depending on tactical or strategical considerations, not philosophical ones: if they feel they can get away with it, they kill; if they feel they can't, they'll do it later. The NIF and its grantees have nothing to do with these enemies, can in no way be connected to them, and if at any point in the high-strung vehement political discussion in Israel and among its friends anyone ever says something such as "you're aiding the worst of our enemies" (hagruim shebeoyveinu!), they don't mean it. There are lots of "worst of our enemies", but no-one in your world, Naomi, is remotely affiliated with them in any way.
Then there's the second rank of Israel's enemies. The ones who believe the Jews have no business having a political entity. These people come in many stripes and flavours, and are motivated by a large variety of sometimes mutually contradictory considerations, but the commonality to their positions and actions is the goal of ending Zionism, which is the political expression of the Jewish nation. Most of the United Nations belongs in this camp. Large chunks of European public opinion. Some in America at both ends of the political spectrum though more at the Left. Some of Israel's Arabs. And yes, there are Jews in this camp, including Jews in Israel. Not many, but a few. I estimate there are probably a few thousand Jewish anti-Zionist Israelis, from a Jewish population that is approaching six million- so, they're a tiny minority - but quite vocal.
The Jewish anti-Zionists know perfectly well they've got nothing to fear from the rest of us, no matter how much they express their derision for us. We're a strong and tolerant democracy, and we don't persecute people for belonging to the second rank of our enemies. (First rank enemies, yes, which is sometimes confusing when individuals play on the line - but that's a different topic). Our public sphere is characterized by a high level of verbal invective and a very low level of physical violence, so anti-Zionists have invective thrown at them, but no projectiles; the tiny number of exceptions prove the rarity. Their participation in the second rank of the war against us doesn't hinder their living normal lives amongst us.
The problem facing the NIF is that the anti-Zionist Israels tend to converge in some of the NIF-grantee NGOs. Worse, the same NGOs often serve the external second-rank enemies even when their members aren't anti-Zionist themselves. Take yesterday's case which I blogged about earlier today. HRW and the present internal Israeli discussion:
Following years in which a tiny minority of Israelis has informed the second rank enemies of Israel that Israeli democracy is crumbling, that Israeli troops routinely commit war crimes, and that the Israeli leadership commits crimes against humanity, a wonderfully democratic conversation has finally happened, in which the majority confronts the tiny minority with the significance of its actions. No one - NO ONE - is suggesting the minority be shut up, its organizations shut down, and certainly not that any legal action be taken against them. No law against them has been mooted, and of course none legislated - nor will such a law be passed. No one arrested, no one physically harassed. One person, Naomi Hazan, is being mocked, which is bad taste - but that's all. Bad taste is permitted in free societies.
In response, Human Rights Watch is warning that Israeli democracy - and thus, make no mistake, Israel's legitimacy - is eroding. This is, I have no better way to say it, a blatant, malicious and intentional lie. Sarah Lee Whitson of HRW, however, doesn't know Hebrew, and lacks even the flimsiest understanding of Israeli society. How she forms her opinions I do not know, but where she gets some of her false information with which to bolster them, that I do know. She gets them from anti-Zionist Israelis, and she gets them from useful idiots, to use the Soviet term. One conveyor belt for the transmission of these sort of lies, half-lies and twisted misrepresentations, are NIF grantee NGOs; moreover, this activity is at the heart of what they do. It's not a regrettable coincidence at the edge of their activity.
This, Naomi, is the case the NIF must respond to. So far, in 10 days of public furor, no-one at the NIF has made even the feeblest attempt to do so, preferring to use legal measures to shut up their critics (they failed, obviously: we're a democracy), and to complain loudly about how criticism of them is a failure of Israeli democracy. It isn't. It's an expression of the democracy.
In Yiddish, that magnificent language of sardonic irony, there's a term for the NIF's behaviour right now. Roughly translated: a Cossack complaining of being robbed.
Hi Naomi, thanks for coming by. I appreciate it.
At the heart of the discussion is a dichotomy, a profound ambivalence. On the one hand, you've got organizations committed to preserving or enhancing democratic freedoms in Israel, and warning and guarding against transgressions or even simple human weaknesses that might erode Israeli society. On the other hand, you've got organizations serving as crucial conveyor belts of twisted, warped and dishonest statements about Israel, from a complex society that lives in Hebrew (and some Arabic, Russian, and many other languages) into the hands of Israel's avowed enemies. The individuals and organizations engaged in the first, legitimate and valuable activities, are sometimes (too often) the exact same people and organizations serving as the conveyor belt in the second.
Let me qualify the observation, before strengthening it. Israel faces two sorts of enemies. The worst are the ones willing (sometimes eager) to destroy the Jews in their homeland. The shooting enemies, the ones who kill Jews, or not, depending on tactical or strategical considerations, not philosophical ones: if they feel they can get away with it, they kill; if they feel they can't, they'll do it later. The NIF and its grantees have nothing to do with these enemies, can in no way be connected to them, and if at any point in the high-strung vehement political discussion in Israel and among its friends anyone ever says something such as "you're aiding the worst of our enemies" (hagruim shebeoyveinu!), they don't mean it. There are lots of "worst of our enemies", but no-one in your world, Naomi, is remotely affiliated with them in any way.
Then there's the second rank of Israel's enemies. The ones who believe the Jews have no business having a political entity. These people come in many stripes and flavours, and are motivated by a large variety of sometimes mutually contradictory considerations, but the commonality to their positions and actions is the goal of ending Zionism, which is the political expression of the Jewish nation. Most of the United Nations belongs in this camp. Large chunks of European public opinion. Some in America at both ends of the political spectrum though more at the Left. Some of Israel's Arabs. And yes, there are Jews in this camp, including Jews in Israel. Not many, but a few. I estimate there are probably a few thousand Jewish anti-Zionist Israelis, from a Jewish population that is approaching six million- so, they're a tiny minority - but quite vocal.
The Jewish anti-Zionists know perfectly well they've got nothing to fear from the rest of us, no matter how much they express their derision for us. We're a strong and tolerant democracy, and we don't persecute people for belonging to the second rank of our enemies. (First rank enemies, yes, which is sometimes confusing when individuals play on the line - but that's a different topic). Our public sphere is characterized by a high level of verbal invective and a very low level of physical violence, so anti-Zionists have invective thrown at them, but no projectiles; the tiny number of exceptions prove the rarity. Their participation in the second rank of the war against us doesn't hinder their living normal lives amongst us.
The problem facing the NIF is that the anti-Zionist Israels tend to converge in some of the NIF-grantee NGOs. Worse, the same NGOs often serve the external second-rank enemies even when their members aren't anti-Zionist themselves. Take yesterday's case which I blogged about earlier today. HRW and the present internal Israeli discussion:
Following years in which a tiny minority of Israelis has informed the second rank enemies of Israel that Israeli democracy is crumbling, that Israeli troops routinely commit war crimes, and that the Israeli leadership commits crimes against humanity, a wonderfully democratic conversation has finally happened, in which the majority confronts the tiny minority with the significance of its actions. No one - NO ONE - is suggesting the minority be shut up, its organizations shut down, and certainly not that any legal action be taken against them. No law against them has been mooted, and of course none legislated - nor will such a law be passed. No one arrested, no one physically harassed. One person, Naomi Hazan, is being mocked, which is bad taste - but that's all. Bad taste is permitted in free societies.
In response, Human Rights Watch is warning that Israeli democracy - and thus, make no mistake, Israel's legitimacy - is eroding. This is, I have no better way to say it, a blatant, malicious and intentional lie. Sarah Lee Whitson of HRW, however, doesn't know Hebrew, and lacks even the flimsiest understanding of Israeli society. How she forms her opinions I do not know, but where she gets some of her false information with which to bolster them, that I do know. She gets them from anti-Zionist Israelis, and she gets them from useful idiots, to use the Soviet term. One conveyor belt for the transmission of these sort of lies, half-lies and twisted misrepresentations, are NIF grantee NGOs; moreover, this activity is at the heart of what they do. It's not a regrettable coincidence at the edge of their activity.
This, Naomi, is the case the NIF must respond to. So far, in 10 days of public furor, no-one at the NIF has made even the feeblest attempt to do so, preferring to use legal measures to shut up their critics (they failed, obviously: we're a democracy), and to complain loudly about how criticism of them is a failure of Israeli democracy. It isn't. It's an expression of the democracy.
In Yiddish, that magnificent language of sardonic irony, there's a term for the NIF's behaviour right now. Roughly translated: a Cossack complaining of being robbed.
HRW Attacks Israel (Gasp)
A commenter linked to Noah Pollak's post yesterday, wherein Human Rights Watch castigates Israel for being mean to the NIF. You should read Noah's post, which is short but entertaining; if you're in that sort of mood, you can also read the HRW press release.
Why is it the business of HRW to have an opinion on the matter at all, I cannot tell you. Even more mystifying, they've gone to the effort of posting a Hebrew language version of their press release. Bets, anyone, on who did the translation for them?
"What we're seeing in Israel is a greater official intolerance of dissent," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "One of Israel's outstanding strengths has been its vibrant civil society and its flourishing public debate, so these developments are particularly worrying."This is, how to put it, cattle secretion. Note how Whitson suddenly compliments us for having had such spirited public debate... now that it's slipping away. No indication that perhaps what's happening is precisely what she admits is positive about Israel: that we're engaging in a public debate. In Whitson's book, public debate means law professors and 20-something self described anarchists castigating Israeli policies and actions. Bus drivers, bank clerks or students kvetching about the law professors and anarchists: that's proof of Israel's disappearing democracy and freedom.
Why is it the business of HRW to have an opinion on the matter at all, I cannot tell you. Even more mystifying, they've gone to the effort of posting a Hebrew language version of their press release. Bets, anyone, on who did the translation for them?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Response to Ben Murane, New Israel Fund
Ben Murane signed up this week at blogger and began defending the NIF from its Im Tirzu critics. He has been active at this blog; I assume he's active elsewhere, also. I'm assuming someone at NIF US gave him the task of dealing with the blogger front. Nothing wrong with that, of course. He has stirred up quite a bit of discussion here; I've decided it's valuable enough to bring back to the front of the blog. I appreciate that all participants have been civil. Unfortunately this is not obvious in today's blogosphere.
Ben also suggested an interesting link, to an article by Ron Kampeas. I don't think I've read Kampeas before, and we probably disagree on some matters of substance, but Ben's right. It's an interesting article.
There's one major fallacy in Ben's argumentation which somehow hasn't been mentioned yet, but first, allow me a quick recap of matters we've already hashed.
1. The Im Tirzu campaign is in poor taste. Even taking aim at Naomi Hazan personally without the offensive caricature is poor taste; she has been in the public eye for decades, and we all know that she's basically harmless. There are mudslingers in all corners of the Israeli political arena, but Hazan has never been one of them. In addition, it has enabled the NIF to turn the debate from its substance to its form. The one thing still not resolved in my mind is the extent to which the furor was fed by the poor taste. Might a benign and polite campaign have disappeared after 15 seconds of fame, while this one is still here in its second week? If so, for all the regret, perhaps Im Tirzu got it right?
2. The NIF and many of its grantees have done much good in Israel. They cannot take as much credit as their recent publications and statements might have us believe, but there's no way to cast them as consistently negative. Having said this, there are parts of the story they're not trumpeting at the moment, such as low-profile but consistent discrimination against all settlers, as a group. Try posting a wanted ad on their classifieds board for something related to a settlement. How does this fit into human rights, you might ask? It doesn't of course. Regular readers will recollect how I documented another facet of this bias, here (and follow the internal links for more).
3. The fact of NIF grantees supplying false and derogatory information to the Goldstone report is well documented. I've written about this a number of times over the past six months or so, and no-one listened. Along came Im Tirzu and were nasty about it, and suddenly the whole relevant world is agog. I recognize that this blog is not very significant, but it also tries to be calm and measured. More elbow power to Im Tirzu: they know how to get their point across to a broad public. Sources? Read chapter XXV of the Goldstone report, for example, which is based almost entirely on NIF-NGOs, and is basically a lie in its entirety. That's for starters. Some of my thoughts on the matter are here and here. And of course, there was the trip to Hebron,which I wrote about here).
Now, to the major fallacy. Ben compares the NIF and its grantees to the ACLU et.al. and says that just as no-one tires to shut them down so it shoud be incomprehensible that anyone in Israel would touch the local human rights organizations, exasperating as they may be. Set aside the matter that no-one is suggesting they get shut down, merely have their funding looked into, the comparison is profoundly wrong.
American human rights organizations don't try to drag their country to foreign forums to be judged. The Israeli NGOs do. They make no secret of the matter; they're proud of it. To rephrase this, the American discussion takes place within the sovereignty of the United States. The Israeli one takes place in an international court of public opinion, politics, diplomacy and boycotts, where Israel's very existence is the heart of the discussion. I'm not going to get into the details, because we all know it to be true: Israel is at war over its right to exist. There are Israelis on the side of Israel's enemies. Some are there with full intent; others are there by default. The result is the same.
For the NIF to be comparable with the ACLU it wold have to publicize its findings in Hebrew, and Hebrew alone. The reality is the opposite.
Last year I once asked a CEO of one of these organizations why they publish so much in English. His answer was simple: our supporters don't know Hebrew. We must raise funds, and that can only be done if our supporters see what we're doing. (We need the international community, since Israeli democracy alone won't go where we want it to go).
You begin to see why the Im Tirzu attack on funding is so threatening to these folks.
Personally, I didn't believe the chap. True, they need to raise funds, and there aren't enough Israelis who might support them. My feeling, however, has always been that there's a second reason.They wish to appear in a better light before their non-Israeli friends, as in "Yes, our regime is ghastly, but we, tho a minority, we're your type of folks".
Ben also suggested an interesting link, to an article by Ron Kampeas. I don't think I've read Kampeas before, and we probably disagree on some matters of substance, but Ben's right. It's an interesting article.
There's one major fallacy in Ben's argumentation which somehow hasn't been mentioned yet, but first, allow me a quick recap of matters we've already hashed.
1. The Im Tirzu campaign is in poor taste. Even taking aim at Naomi Hazan personally without the offensive caricature is poor taste; she has been in the public eye for decades, and we all know that she's basically harmless. There are mudslingers in all corners of the Israeli political arena, but Hazan has never been one of them. In addition, it has enabled the NIF to turn the debate from its substance to its form. The one thing still not resolved in my mind is the extent to which the furor was fed by the poor taste. Might a benign and polite campaign have disappeared after 15 seconds of fame, while this one is still here in its second week? If so, for all the regret, perhaps Im Tirzu got it right?
2. The NIF and many of its grantees have done much good in Israel. They cannot take as much credit as their recent publications and statements might have us believe, but there's no way to cast them as consistently negative. Having said this, there are parts of the story they're not trumpeting at the moment, such as low-profile but consistent discrimination against all settlers, as a group. Try posting a wanted ad on their classifieds board for something related to a settlement. How does this fit into human rights, you might ask? It doesn't of course. Regular readers will recollect how I documented another facet of this bias, here (and follow the internal links for more).
3. The fact of NIF grantees supplying false and derogatory information to the Goldstone report is well documented. I've written about this a number of times over the past six months or so, and no-one listened. Along came Im Tirzu and were nasty about it, and suddenly the whole relevant world is agog. I recognize that this blog is not very significant, but it also tries to be calm and measured. More elbow power to Im Tirzu: they know how to get their point across to a broad public. Sources? Read chapter XXV of the Goldstone report, for example, which is based almost entirely on NIF-NGOs, and is basically a lie in its entirety. That's for starters. Some of my thoughts on the matter are here and here. And of course, there was the trip to Hebron,which I wrote about here).
Now, to the major fallacy. Ben compares the NIF and its grantees to the ACLU et.al. and says that just as no-one tires to shut them down so it shoud be incomprehensible that anyone in Israel would touch the local human rights organizations, exasperating as they may be. Set aside the matter that no-one is suggesting they get shut down, merely have their funding looked into, the comparison is profoundly wrong.
American human rights organizations don't try to drag their country to foreign forums to be judged. The Israeli NGOs do. They make no secret of the matter; they're proud of it. To rephrase this, the American discussion takes place within the sovereignty of the United States. The Israeli one takes place in an international court of public opinion, politics, diplomacy and boycotts, where Israel's very existence is the heart of the discussion. I'm not going to get into the details, because we all know it to be true: Israel is at war over its right to exist. There are Israelis on the side of Israel's enemies. Some are there with full intent; others are there by default. The result is the same.
For the NIF to be comparable with the ACLU it wold have to publicize its findings in Hebrew, and Hebrew alone. The reality is the opposite.
Last year I once asked a CEO of one of these organizations why they publish so much in English. His answer was simple: our supporters don't know Hebrew. We must raise funds, and that can only be done if our supporters see what we're doing. (We need the international community, since Israeli democracy alone won't go where we want it to go).
You begin to see why the Im Tirzu attack on funding is so threatening to these folks.
Personally, I didn't believe the chap. True, they need to raise funds, and there aren't enough Israelis who might support them. My feeling, however, has always been that there's a second reason.They wish to appear in a better light before their non-Israeli friends, as in "Yes, our regime is ghastly, but we, tho a minority, we're your type of folks".
Haaretz Makes an Editorial Decision
It was Haaretz who spread the story of the Jerusalem Post firing Naomi Hazan. The part of the story that fit their agenda, that is: that she was fired, with the (unstated) implication that this was retaliation for... for what exactly? That she's a Lefty? It was an odd story.
Then the JP explained, and suddenly the story was turned on its head.
This morning I looked through the entire paper edition of Haaretz, from front to back. There is no mention of the story, no explanation that the previous version was fundamentally flawed, nothing.
Are we to surmise that if it doesn't fit the political agenda, it isn't newsworthy? At the newspaper that prides itself on being serious, thoughtful, and intelligent? It's that blatant?
Then the JP explained, and suddenly the story was turned on its head.
This morning I looked through the entire paper edition of Haaretz, from front to back. There is no mention of the story, no explanation that the previous version was fundamentally flawed, nothing.
Are we to surmise that if it doesn't fit the political agenda, it isn't newsworthy? At the newspaper that prides itself on being serious, thoughtful, and intelligent? It's that blatant?
et tu, Coteret?
Alex Stein, a reader whose positions are significantly different than mine, sent me this morning to a blog post at Coteret. Alex felt they had made a convincing case against the Jerusalem Post for their firing of Naomi Hazan. Since I've linked to them, you can all go and see if their case is convincing.
Having read the post, I left a short comment. Within a few minutes it was deleted. So I'm reconstructing it from memory:
The NIF is using legal measures to attempt to block freedom of speech. The word hubris seems tailored to the actions of the NIF.
I'm now going to leave a link to this post over at Coteret. Either they'll leave it up - which is the decent thing to do - or they'll delete it again, but this time there's a record of my informing them the deletion won't work. It's a win-win situation: either they leave my dissent, which is good, or they demonstrate and document their inability to allow dissent, which is informative. In the present context, it's more than informative, it's central to the discussion.
Having read the post, I left a short comment. Within a few minutes it was deleted. So I'm reconstructing it from memory:
The NIF is using legal measures to attempt to block freedom of speech. The word hubris seems tailored to the actions of the NIF.
I'm now going to leave a link to this post over at Coteret. Either they'll leave it up - which is the decent thing to do - or they'll delete it again, but this time there's a record of my informing them the deletion won't work. It's a win-win situation: either they leave my dissent, which is good, or they demonstrate and document their inability to allow dissent, which is informative. In the present context, it's more than informative, it's central to the discussion.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Objective Journalism
The anti-Israel mob has been baying at the New York Times for some time already - many months, at least - that their bureau chief in Israel, Ethan Bronner, is too pro-Israel. They have now scored a body hit, because Bronner's 20-year-old son recently joined the IDF (as an American, not as an Israeli. There are such programs).
Clark Hoyt, the paper's Public Editor, today published a column in which he stated his full confidence in Bronner as a professional journalist, but said the appearance of partiality was too great and he must be moved elsewhere. His boss, the Executive Editor Bill Keller, explains why he's not willing to move Bronner.
The whole episode is odd. Has the Times ever had such agonizing over, say, American reporters reporting on American wars? That would go either way, of course: How dare you have an American reporter with family in the war; how dare you have a reporter with none? Are there UK papers agonizing over the Britishness of their reporters in Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen or Pakistan? Are there any Arabs reporting from anywhere in the Arab world? An Indian reporting on tensions with Pakistan: unacceptable? If not, why not?
It's a well documented fact that during the Holocaust the (Jewish owned) Times downplayed the stories of persecution seeping out of Europe; they were afraid of being marked a "Jewish newspaper". Perhaps they've been publicly agonizing over such issues ever since, and the Bronner story is merely the most recent in a long tradition. If so, feel free to enlighten me.
If not, and if it's only Jews or Israel that get agonized about, what does that tell us?
Clark Hoyt, the paper's Public Editor, today published a column in which he stated his full confidence in Bronner as a professional journalist, but said the appearance of partiality was too great and he must be moved elsewhere. His boss, the Executive Editor Bill Keller, explains why he's not willing to move Bronner.
The whole episode is odd. Has the Times ever had such agonizing over, say, American reporters reporting on American wars? That would go either way, of course: How dare you have an American reporter with family in the war; how dare you have a reporter with none? Are there UK papers agonizing over the Britishness of their reporters in Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen or Pakistan? Are there any Arabs reporting from anywhere in the Arab world? An Indian reporting on tensions with Pakistan: unacceptable? If not, why not?
It's a well documented fact that during the Holocaust the (Jewish owned) Times downplayed the stories of persecution seeping out of Europe; they were afraid of being marked a "Jewish newspaper". Perhaps they've been publicly agonizing over such issues ever since, and the Bronner story is merely the most recent in a long tradition. If so, feel free to enlighten me.
If not, and if it's only Jews or Israel that get agonized about, what does that tell us?
NIF: In A Hole, Digging....
Barry Meislin points me to this announcement on the Jerusalem Post website (via Noah Pollak):
We do need to watch how Haaretz reports this tomorrow.
The Jerusalem Post has canceled Naomi Chazan’s biweekly column, after she and the New Israel Fund of which she is president threatened legal action against the paper over a recent advertisement.Hard to believe, isn't it. As in "Naaa, that's impossible". That kind of hard to believe.
The decision was taken by Jerusalem Post management after a legal threat was received at the paper from the NIF and Chazan’s lawyers.
Along with other publications, the Post last Sunday carried an advertisement criticizing Chazan and the New Israel Fund in the context of the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead.
In Friday’s paper, the Post carried an advertisement defending the NIF and Chazan against their critics.
We do need to watch how Haaretz reports this tomorrow.
Rumination on Higher Education
A truism of modern contemporary politics is that some strands of the polity think there's a connection between their comparatively elevated degree of education and the inherent correctness of their political positions. (The NIF dust-up we're having these days reeks of this). The corollary, mildly distasteful as it is, is that folks who have spent fewer years accumulating academic qualifications may be less likely to understand what's right, or good, or correct.
I'm all for education. Some of my best friends are university professors. I even spent some years of my life in university environments, and put significant efforts into acquiring various degrees. Yet sad to tell, the case for the intellectual superiority of the academically-trained has never seemed compelling to me. I know too may people without the training who are highly intelligent, and too many folks with fancy degrees whose ability to understand the world is, how to put it, unconvincing.
Recently I've been engaged in an unusual exercise: I'm reading lots of doctoral theses. There are business reasons for this: in a nutshell, I'd like to offer the academic world a tool that will make life a wee bit more efficient; for this purpose, however, I've got to understand what different types of academic research looks like. What do doctoral students do when they get up in the morning?
Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I'm wondering if perhaps the acquisition of an advanced degree in today's academic world might not actively hamper one's ability to relate to humans. I'm not seeing that it strengthens one's ability to express coherent thoughts, for one; nor that there' an overriding curiosity about people. Paradigms, yes. Constructs, certainly. Models, there are those. People, and how they relate to their lives: less.
Maybe I'm simply finding the wrong doctoral theses.
I'm all for education. Some of my best friends are university professors. I even spent some years of my life in university environments, and put significant efforts into acquiring various degrees. Yet sad to tell, the case for the intellectual superiority of the academically-trained has never seemed compelling to me. I know too may people without the training who are highly intelligent, and too many folks with fancy degrees whose ability to understand the world is, how to put it, unconvincing.
Recently I've been engaged in an unusual exercise: I'm reading lots of doctoral theses. There are business reasons for this: in a nutshell, I'd like to offer the academic world a tool that will make life a wee bit more efficient; for this purpose, however, I've got to understand what different types of academic research looks like. What do doctoral students do when they get up in the morning?
Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I'm wondering if perhaps the acquisition of an advanced degree in today's academic world might not actively hamper one's ability to relate to humans. I'm not seeing that it strengthens one's ability to express coherent thoughts, for one; nor that there' an overriding curiosity about people. Paradigms, yes. Constructs, certainly. Models, there are those. People, and how they relate to their lives: less.
Maybe I'm simply finding the wrong doctoral theses.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Gathering
Over the weekend I read Anne Enright's 2007 Booker Prize-winning The Gathering.
If you like very well written novels in which deeply troubled narrators slowly uncover the decision made 80 years ago which led to an ugly act 35 years ago which will negatively impact a dysfunctional family well into the second half of the 21st century, you'll enjoy this book greatly. It is very well written, and does do a fine job of unraveling the mystery while creating complex figures in a compelling story.
Me, I suppose I'm too philistine to be swept away by this sort of thing. This is either cause or effect of my not reading enough contemporary literature.
On the other hand, a few days ago I completed Tony Judt's magnificent Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945
. Judt is a strident enemy of Israel, but he has written a truly top-notch history of Europe, and I need to find the time to write my impressions; I even ought to do so soon, while they're still fresh. Alas (or not at all alas) I'm very pressed for time these days. Anyway, if anyone offers you to choose between these two books, now you know my recommendation.
If you like very well written novels in which deeply troubled narrators slowly uncover the decision made 80 years ago which led to an ugly act 35 years ago which will negatively impact a dysfunctional family well into the second half of the 21st century, you'll enjoy this book greatly. It is very well written, and does do a fine job of unraveling the mystery while creating complex figures in a compelling story.
Me, I suppose I'm too philistine to be swept away by this sort of thing. This is either cause or effect of my not reading enough contemporary literature.
On the other hand, a few days ago I completed Tony Judt's magnificent Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945
. Judt is a strident enemy of Israel, but he has written a truly top-notch history of Europe, and I need to find the time to write my impressions; I even ought to do so soon, while they're still fresh. Alas (or not at all alas) I'm very pressed for time these days. Anyway, if anyone offers you to choose between these two books, now you know my recommendation.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Miep Gies, RIP
The Economist has a moving obituary for the woman who tired to save the family of Anne Frank.
NIF, Democracy, Decency and Other Problems
Earlier this week I wrote about the New Israel Fund (NIF) affair that just blew up (here and here). As it was easy to foretell, the usual suspects immediately swung into action to portray the attack on the NIF as a bold attack on Israel's democracy. That was a no-brainer. Haaretz takes it one step further, and is digging deep into the matter of who funds Im Tirzu, the organization which launched the attack. If memory serves, it was only a few months ago that questions were raised about the sources of funding that benefit left-wing organizations, at which time they branded such questions as.... A threat to democracy.
All of which seems to me a fine demonstration of democracy in action. We don't like you, you don't like us, we think you're stinkers, you think we're funded by Bad Guys, we're convinced your backers are Evil... that's what freedom of speech is all about. That the tones in Israel are harsh and strident is because Israelis have a culture of discourse which is not at all like what they teach in Oxford. The rancor of American political discourse these past 15 years (or is it 50?) can't hold a candle to the vitality (nice name) or vehemence (realistic name) of standard Israeli fare. Just as the Israeli ability to come together at times of crises is quite unimaginable in America or Europe. (Well, the Americans didn't do badly on 9/12). This is the Jewish way: the Talmud has many examples of scholars bad-mouthing one another while simultaneously engaging each other in complex discussions, and uniting in the face of external enemies.
The Arabic word which has been adopted (colonized) by modern Hebrew is dugri: when you tell your interlocutor what you really think about them. Israelis are extremely dugri; this also means they know where they stand with one another, and can get on with living together.
Which is not to say there's no substance to the present spat. There is.
The decision by Im Tirzu to attack Naomi Hazan personally is bad taste and enables the NIF to change the subject; it may or may not be a good tactic, however, since it's certainly generating a lot of attention, and attention is what Im Tirzu wanted. So if it was a good tactic or not, the PR people will have to say.
The decision of the NIF to respond as they're responding, however, is telling. They've got two official responses up, one in English, on the American NIF website, and the other in Hebrew on the Israeli NIF website. The English one is signed by an American, the Israeli one by an Israeli, and if you compare the two it's pretty clear they were both written by the same person.
How does the NIF defend itself? Poorly. First, they're the victims. Second, democracy in Israel has been their doing (you might even think: almost only their doing). Third, the attack on them is part of a purposeful undermining of democracy in Israel. Fourth... well, I'd like to tell you that fourth is some sort of response to the allegations against them, but alas, it isn't. Naomi Hazan (in the Haaretz link above) says there's nothing to respond to (she's a professor, so she knows); the rest of her colleagues don't even go that far.
The historical reality has been that NIF-funded organizations indeed have made valuable contributions to the Israeli political and social sphere. They have and hopefully will continue to play an important role. A democracy really does need as many voices as possible, and theirs is sometimes a valuable one. Sometimes, it isn't. That's the crux of the matter. Some of the same NGOs which participate positively in Israel's democracy, also take positions which are legal but morally and of course factually indefensible. Pretending this is not so is delusional. Claiming that they are above reproach is anti-democratic.
Finally, there's the comic aspect of how thin their skin is. Remember, the NGOs in question dish out criticism, harsh criticism and sometimes rancid animosity; they often intentionally supply Israel's enemies with rhetorical ammunition against it at time of war. They've got a serious case to answer, and preening that requiring them to do so is antidemocratic, is silly.
How very silly? This silly: one of their main demands is that Israel set up an independent investigation of the IDF actions in Gaza (I agree with them). One of the horrific things in the present attack on them (to be found only in their Hebrew-language complaint) is
Gasp!
All of which seems to me a fine demonstration of democracy in action. We don't like you, you don't like us, we think you're stinkers, you think we're funded by Bad Guys, we're convinced your backers are Evil... that's what freedom of speech is all about. That the tones in Israel are harsh and strident is because Israelis have a culture of discourse which is not at all like what they teach in Oxford. The rancor of American political discourse these past 15 years (or is it 50?) can't hold a candle to the vitality (nice name) or vehemence (realistic name) of standard Israeli fare. Just as the Israeli ability to come together at times of crises is quite unimaginable in America or Europe. (Well, the Americans didn't do badly on 9/12). This is the Jewish way: the Talmud has many examples of scholars bad-mouthing one another while simultaneously engaging each other in complex discussions, and uniting in the face of external enemies.
The Arabic word which has been adopted (colonized) by modern Hebrew is dugri: when you tell your interlocutor what you really think about them. Israelis are extremely dugri; this also means they know where they stand with one another, and can get on with living together.
Which is not to say there's no substance to the present spat. There is.
The decision by Im Tirzu to attack Naomi Hazan personally is bad taste and enables the NIF to change the subject; it may or may not be a good tactic, however, since it's certainly generating a lot of attention, and attention is what Im Tirzu wanted. So if it was a good tactic or not, the PR people will have to say.
The decision of the NIF to respond as they're responding, however, is telling. They've got two official responses up, one in English, on the American NIF website, and the other in Hebrew on the Israeli NIF website. The English one is signed by an American, the Israeli one by an Israeli, and if you compare the two it's pretty clear they were both written by the same person.
How does the NIF defend itself? Poorly. First, they're the victims. Second, democracy in Israel has been their doing (you might even think: almost only their doing). Third, the attack on them is part of a purposeful undermining of democracy in Israel. Fourth... well, I'd like to tell you that fourth is some sort of response to the allegations against them, but alas, it isn't. Naomi Hazan (in the Haaretz link above) says there's nothing to respond to (she's a professor, so she knows); the rest of her colleagues don't even go that far.
The historical reality has been that NIF-funded organizations indeed have made valuable contributions to the Israeli political and social sphere. They have and hopefully will continue to play an important role. A democracy really does need as many voices as possible, and theirs is sometimes a valuable one. Sometimes, it isn't. That's the crux of the matter. Some of the same NGOs which participate positively in Israel's democracy, also take positions which are legal but morally and of course factually indefensible. Pretending this is not so is delusional. Claiming that they are above reproach is anti-democratic.
Finally, there's the comic aspect of how thin their skin is. Remember, the NGOs in question dish out criticism, harsh criticism and sometimes rancid animosity; they often intentionally supply Israel's enemies with rhetorical ammunition against it at time of war. They've got a serious case to answer, and preening that requiring them to do so is antidemocratic, is silly.
How very silly? This silly: one of their main demands is that Israel set up an independent investigation of the IDF actions in Gaza (I agree with them). One of the horrific things in the present attack on them (to be found only in their Hebrew-language complaint) is
וכעת התבשרנו כי הצעת חוק פרטית, המליצה על הקמת וועדת בדיקה פרלמנטארית (!), כדי לבדוק את פעולתם של הקרן החדשה לישראל וקבוצה של ארגוני זכויות אדם בכל הקשור לדוח גולדסטון.
Someone has suggested there be a parliamentary investigation into the actions of these NGOs in relation to the Goldstone Inquiry!
Old Vs. New Testament
In the previous post I mentioned a column Geoffrey Alderman published at CiF Watch. Here's his column, in which he rebuts a television program by one Peter Oborne about the pernicious influence of the Israel Lobby in the UK. An English version of Walt-Mearsheimer, if you will. Yet professors Walt and Mearsheimer were respected scholars, if not broadly well-known, when they decided to trade stolid academia for notoriety by turning to the worn canard about how the Jews control the levers of power.
Not so Oborne.
Peter Oborne is not one of the Guardian stable of Lefty antisemites. He's a Righty antisemite, which goes to show that hatred of Jews is an equal opportunity affliction. Moreover, his antisemitism, while it uses anti-Israel terminology, doesn't try very hard to pretend that Israel is the problem.
Alderman's column rang a bell, and I went rummaging. Sure enough, and soon enough, I had found evidence for the prosecution. It was written a week after 9/11. In September 2001, for those who have forgotten, the Palestinians were ratcheting up their suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. The year earlier Israel had made a series of proposals for resolution of the conflict, and when they weren't deemed good enough they made further offers. The Palestinians had responded with violence, and by September 2001 they were convinced they were winning. The UN carnival of antisemitism at Durban, South Africa, reinforced their feeling that the world was supporting them. (It was only the following Spring that Israel finally disabused them of these mistakes, eventually leading to the relative calm we've had on the West Bank these past five years or so).
That's the context. Now, Oborne's take on it at the time:
Not so Oborne.
Peter Oborne is not one of the Guardian stable of Lefty antisemites. He's a Righty antisemite, which goes to show that hatred of Jews is an equal opportunity affliction. Moreover, his antisemitism, while it uses anti-Israel terminology, doesn't try very hard to pretend that Israel is the problem.
Alderman's column rang a bell, and I went rummaging. Sure enough, and soon enough, I had found evidence for the prosecution. It was written a week after 9/11. In September 2001, for those who have forgotten, the Palestinians were ratcheting up their suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. The year earlier Israel had made a series of proposals for resolution of the conflict, and when they weren't deemed good enough they made further offers. The Palestinians had responded with violence, and by September 2001 they were convinced they were winning. The UN carnival of antisemitism at Durban, South Africa, reinforced their feeling that the world was supporting them. (It was only the following Spring that Israel finally disabused them of these mistakes, eventually leading to the relative calm we've had on the West Bank these past five years or so).
That's the context. Now, Oborne's take on it at the time:
Anyone who thinks that Arab terrorism can be defeated until the Palestine situation is resolved is dreaming. The thought of the West taking reprisals against bin Laden without demanding major concessions from Israel makes the blood run cold...Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it?
This war, if it is a war, is a conflict between Old and New Testament. It is between those who value human life and those who do not. If the West goes down the way of revenge, as Bush especially seems ready to do, than it will lose. Both the President and the Prime Minister affect to be Christians. They might care to contemplate, before they order troops into action, how Christ would have reacted.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Correct Comment is Free. Not the Other Kind.
Geoffrey Alderman is a professor of history. Amazon.uk has more than ten books of his on offer, and they cover an interesting range of subjects. He has published almost 80 articles on CiF; he also post comments there, unusual in that he uses his real name.
Not anymore, as he tells here.
Not anymore, as he tells here.
In November, I accepted an invitation to write for CiF Watch a piece on Peter Oborne’s Channel 4 documentary Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby and on Tony Lerman’s defence of it on CiF.
I can now reveal that, within days of the publication of my critique, I received an email from the Guardian telling me that, if I dared to continue writing for CiF Watch, I would no longer be able to contribute to CiF. It was, I was summarily warned, “an either/or choice”.
I can further reveal that I have now been placed on a special list of persons whose CiF comments will be reviewed in advance of their online publication.
If you seek the honor of writing for the Guardian, you can't also write for their guardians. It's a democracy, not a free-for-all.
Or as Mondoweiss might put it, it's a war of ideas. You have to choose which side you're on. Truth? Independent thought? Diversity? Wot?
Groupthink
Norm has been thinking rather a lot recently about the UK public discussion about the war in Iraq. In a nutshell, there's a large and influential group of people for whom the wrongness and illegality of the war are the starting point of any discussion; all that remains thereafter is to condemn or praise people or actions according to their relationship to the fundamental truth. Today's installment:
There were, of course, certain facts of the matter about the war, certain unambiguous truths, as there are about more or less anything. But the justificatory arguments on both sides appealed to a range, not only of facts, not only of projections of the likely consequences of one or another course of action, but also to moral and political principles - concerning the general justifications for war, the application of international law to this case, the force of international law, the demands of solidarity in the face of tyranny, the proper circumstances of humanitarian intervention - that do not map neatly on to any simple story about the occurrence of an act of adultery or theft or political kidnapping. But never mind all that, hey. The truth is just as we declare it to be. That has been the arrogance of anti-war groupthink in the last few years. In the mouth of any liberal it is a precious victory handed to the partisans of the one and only Party Line.
I don't mean to be gratuitously insulting but Macintyre's column belongs in the pages of the Guardian.
Eventually the whole thing becomes very depressing. There's a whole class of Brits, apparently, who have lost the ability to think, or even to recognize the right of others to do so. If you don't see things our way, you must be deranged. Worse: evil. (Merely deranged is to be pitied; there's no pity in this discussion).
There's a noticeable overlap, of course, between the educated British elites who have surrendered their cognitive abilities for the fuzzy warm feeling of righteousness on Iraq, and the educated British elites who have surrendered their cognitive abilities for the warm fuzzy feeling of moral superiority regarding the Jews as actors in history.
Bloggers Aren't Very Important
Andrew Sullivan, about as popular a blogger as you'll find, had 11,000,000 page views in January (9 million the previous month). Page views aren't people, of course, but even if they were that comes out to about 350,000 a day. Let's say, by approximation, 0.1% of the American population (not to mention that some of his readers aren't Americans). This means, to put it mildly, that most people don't read Andrew. I'll go out on a limb here and say, most people have never heard of Andrew. And he's one of the biggest around, I repeat.
For all the self congratulatory stuff bloggers like to write about the demise of the mainstream media and all that, maybe the case isn't sealed yet.
For all the self congratulatory stuff bloggers like to write about the demise of the mainstream media and all that, maybe the case isn't sealed yet.
A Tale of Two Foreign Ministers
Avigdor Lieberman this morning demonstrated once again why Netanyahu should get rid of him, when he launched a blunt series of threats at the Assad regime, saying that if there's another war between Israel and Syrian, not only will Syria lose, the Assad family will also lose.
Lieberman is probably right that a threat to the regime will probably worry them, since they care about that more than most things. He's probably wrong that Israel could make it happen. In any case, it's exactly the kind of talk a foreign minister - the top diplomat, for crying out loud! - is expected not to make. There are good things one could say about LIeberman, but he's clearly in the wrong job.
Will Netanyahu get rid of him? He should. Given the composition of the present Knesset, he can, too. He could reposition himself a bit to the center (where he personally already almost is); this would cost him about 25 MKs from his present coalition, including even the Ztipi Hotobeli wing of his own party. In return, it would bring him some 33 MKs from Kadima and the Shelli-Yehimovich wing of the Labor party. But he won't, Netanyahu. It would be too bold a step for his image.
Meanwhile, Lieberman's idiotic comments were a response to the comments of Walid Mualem, his Syrian counterpart. Mualem yesterday threatened not Israel's military, nor its leaders. He brazenly threatened the civilians in its cities.
Lieberman is probably right that a threat to the regime will probably worry them, since they care about that more than most things. He's probably wrong that Israel could make it happen. In any case, it's exactly the kind of talk a foreign minister - the top diplomat, for crying out loud! - is expected not to make. There are good things one could say about LIeberman, but he's clearly in the wrong job.
Will Netanyahu get rid of him? He should. Given the composition of the present Knesset, he can, too. He could reposition himself a bit to the center (where he personally already almost is); this would cost him about 25 MKs from his present coalition, including even the Ztipi Hotobeli wing of his own party. In return, it would bring him some 33 MKs from Kadima and the Shelli-Yehimovich wing of the Labor party. But he won't, Netanyahu. It would be too bold a step for his image.
Meanwhile, Lieberman's idiotic comments were a response to the comments of Walid Mualem, his Syrian counterpart. Mualem yesterday threatened not Israel's military, nor its leaders. He brazenly threatened the civilians in its cities.
"Israel knows that if it declares war on Syria, such a war will reach its cities as well," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Wednesday following his meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos.That's right. The second most important man in the Syrian government announced that his country will purposefully target the citizens of Israel's cities, should hostilities break out. I expect Amnesty, HRW, the UN, and all the usual suspects will loudly condemn this threat - assuming they ever hear about it. It's not to be found at the BBC, NYT, or Guardian websites this mornings; I guess it's not newsworthy. Just as Lieberman's outburst also won't be newsworthy tomorrow.
Jews in East Jerusalem
Lots of people know about Sheikh Jarra, where a long legal process eventually resulted in the eviction of a few Palestinian families who refused to pay rent; they were replaced by Jews. Palestinians in the same building who do pay are still there, and not going anywhere. This is turning into a cause célèbre for the anti-Israel crowd.
Meanwhile, about two miles to the south the opposite story has finished its wending through the courts. A Jewish group purchased a plot of land in the Arab section of Silwan and built a seven-story apartment building there. They called it Beit Yonatan, Jonathan's House, in honor of Jonathan Pollard. In this case, it was the Jews who lost the ensuing court case; my understanding is that they built significantly higher than the zoning rules allow, in their attempt to fit as many Jews as possible into the little space they had acquired.
The mayor, Nir Barkat, has been dragging his feet in complying to the court order to evict the Jews and seal the building. I know the mayor personally, though not that well; some people I know know him very well. I believe him when he says his intention was to hammer out an agreement that would resolve all the illegal building issues in Silwan; that's the way he works. The State Prosecutor, however, isn't an elected politician, he's a lawyer, and he has been demanding that the mayor follow the law first, and perhaps resolve the larger issue later. So the mayor has announced he'll comply: he'll enforce all the court decisions, those against the Jews and those against the Arabs - although, he warns, enforcing the decisions against Palestinians will probably lead to riots. (And undoubtedly they'll lead to wall-to-wall condemnation of Israel, from the White House down).
It's like watching a train wreck about to happen.
Meanwhile, about two miles to the south the opposite story has finished its wending through the courts. A Jewish group purchased a plot of land in the Arab section of Silwan and built a seven-story apartment building there. They called it Beit Yonatan, Jonathan's House, in honor of Jonathan Pollard. In this case, it was the Jews who lost the ensuing court case; my understanding is that they built significantly higher than the zoning rules allow, in their attempt to fit as many Jews as possible into the little space they had acquired.
The mayor, Nir Barkat, has been dragging his feet in complying to the court order to evict the Jews and seal the building. I know the mayor personally, though not that well; some people I know know him very well. I believe him when he says his intention was to hammer out an agreement that would resolve all the illegal building issues in Silwan; that's the way he works. The State Prosecutor, however, isn't an elected politician, he's a lawyer, and he has been demanding that the mayor follow the law first, and perhaps resolve the larger issue later. So the mayor has announced he'll comply: he'll enforce all the court decisions, those against the Jews and those against the Arabs - although, he warns, enforcing the decisions against Palestinians will probably lead to riots. (And undoubtedly they'll lead to wall-to-wall condemnation of Israel, from the White House down).
It's like watching a train wreck about to happen.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Some of My Best Friends Are Antisemites
Have I ever mentioned that Phil Weiss of Mondoweiss is a narcissist? Well anyway, even if he is, this demonstration of the fact is pretty funny.
Oddly revealing tho.
Oddly revealing tho.
Water
Blogging may be light for a bit, as I've got some deadlines to meet. On the other hand, it's a bad habit that's hard to buck, so who knows...
Last October Amnesty International published a report about how Israel is drinking all the Palestinian water. (Here's the summary, and here's the 112-page report). Only this morning, while looking for something else, did I see that Israel's Water Authority posted a reply back in November, which in turn relies on a report posted back in March 2009, here. I skimmed over the summary of the Amnesty report, and read the 9-page November response; the two longer documents I'll need more time for - whenever. Especially as the little reading I've done convinces me that it's a complex topic. You have to know lots of stuff in order to be able to make sense of the different positions. Merely bandying numbers around won't fly. Not if you're serious. There are hydrology issues, there are legal issues, there are diplomatic issues (who signed what and what does it mean), there are economic issues, there are political issues - and without a reasonable grasp of the essentials, the so-called human rights issues can't be seriously addressed.
I'm posting merely as a public service. If anyone wishes to read the documents and tell us what's in them, great. I'll even go further: if anyone wishes to write a serious article about what's going on, I'll gladly host them here (tho there are vastly more popular venues elsewhere).
Last October Amnesty International published a report about how Israel is drinking all the Palestinian water. (Here's the summary, and here's the 112-page report). Only this morning, while looking for something else, did I see that Israel's Water Authority posted a reply back in November, which in turn relies on a report posted back in March 2009, here. I skimmed over the summary of the Amnesty report, and read the 9-page November response; the two longer documents I'll need more time for - whenever. Especially as the little reading I've done convinces me that it's a complex topic. You have to know lots of stuff in order to be able to make sense of the different positions. Merely bandying numbers around won't fly. Not if you're serious. There are hydrology issues, there are legal issues, there are diplomatic issues (who signed what and what does it mean), there are economic issues, there are political issues - and without a reasonable grasp of the essentials, the so-called human rights issues can't be seriously addressed.
I'm posting merely as a public service. If anyone wishes to read the documents and tell us what's in them, great. I'll even go further: if anyone wishes to write a serious article about what's going on, I'll gladly host them here (tho there are vastly more popular venues elsewhere).
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Measuring the Pervasiveness of Antisemitism
Were the Nazis antisemites? Were the Germans of that time? Silly question, you might think: if the Nazis weren't antisemites, who ever was? If a sizable chunk of their society didn't hate Jews, who got rid of them all over Europe and sent them to the East to be killed? Who set up and ran the killing machine?
That's common sense, of course. Yet common sense isn't as common as we'd like. Over the decades there have been popular narratives of the Nazi era which earnestly claimed that the authentic Jew-haters were few and far between, and it was all sorts of other things that motivated people (if they even noticed what they were doing). Indeed, by the 1980s, the mainstream of historians of Nazism were busy downplaying the centrality of Jew hatred and playing up other things. Eventually some of them - most notably, a largish group of young German historians - re-examined the historical record and came back to report that Yes, hatred of the Jews had been pervasive and significant in the story of their persecution and mass murder. Till this very day, however, it's not hard to find well-intentioned folks who will earnestly tell you that No, it was man's inhumanity to man or some such fairy tale.
All of which is a long introduction to this link. Behind it you'll find a report by Julie Birchill about the ambiance of Jew hatred in today's UK. Anyone can read the Guardian and see the antisemitism in it; what's harder to do is know if the haters there are representative of anything. That's why reports from the field such as Burchill's are so important. These are not far out loonies, she's telling. Or perhaps they are, but there are lots of them.
(h/t Divest).
That's common sense, of course. Yet common sense isn't as common as we'd like. Over the decades there have been popular narratives of the Nazi era which earnestly claimed that the authentic Jew-haters were few and far between, and it was all sorts of other things that motivated people (if they even noticed what they were doing). Indeed, by the 1980s, the mainstream of historians of Nazism were busy downplaying the centrality of Jew hatred and playing up other things. Eventually some of them - most notably, a largish group of young German historians - re-examined the historical record and came back to report that Yes, hatred of the Jews had been pervasive and significant in the story of their persecution and mass murder. Till this very day, however, it's not hard to find well-intentioned folks who will earnestly tell you that No, it was man's inhumanity to man or some such fairy tale.
All of which is a long introduction to this link. Behind it you'll find a report by Julie Birchill about the ambiance of Jew hatred in today's UK. Anyone can read the Guardian and see the antisemitism in it; what's harder to do is know if the haters there are representative of anything. That's why reports from the field such as Burchill's are so important. These are not far out loonies, she's telling. Or perhaps they are, but there are lots of them.
(h/t Divest).
Not Human Rights
My son (the student, not the soldier) sent me this link, and tells me I should quote Ben Dror Yemini more often than I do. Yemini is a Tel-Aviv lawyer turned centrist pundit with a sharp pen and a regular column in Maariv. The problem is, he writes Hebrew, and even when he gets translated (here's an archive of his translated articles), much of his argument gets lost in the translation. Here, for example, is a column which makes use of the fact that Gay and Pride are the same word in Hebrew, not that you'd ever guess from the translation of his column. (Gay, Gaava, Pride, that's how the word was chosen, and a neat choice it was).
This week's column looks at the NIF and the scandal of its support for Israeli's enemies.
This week's column looks at the NIF and the scandal of its support for Israeli's enemies.
The NIF has joined the many deceivers. There are a million and one violations of human rights in the world. Israel, as a country at war, violates less than any other. I've checked, and the numbers prove it. But it gets the lion share of the criticism. It's called demonizing, de-legitimizing, and obsession. This isn't human rights. It's an orchestrated campaign.
Thought Experiment - 2
Helen Grady at the BBC accepts that global warming is happening, but wonders why so many of its advocates use religious terminology. Christian, terminology, I'd add. It's nice to see that the BBC agrees with me that there's a Church of Global Warming out there - and I repeat my oft-stated position that global warming or not, burning old fossils can't be a good thing. Not for the atmosphere, not for the windfalls it gives the Saudis, Russians and Hugo Chavez.
Reading her article suggested another thought experiment. Some American left-wing pundits bemoan how their ideological adversaries resort to fear to promote their agenda. Fear of terrorists, fear of death panels, fear of the end of the world as we know it... hey, isn't that a fear both sides like to warn of?
Reading her article suggested another thought experiment. Some American left-wing pundits bemoan how their ideological adversaries resort to fear to promote their agenda. Fear of terrorists, fear of death panels, fear of the end of the world as we know it... hey, isn't that a fear both sides like to warn of?
Death and Transactions
Tomorrow the Daf Yomi brigade will finish Bava Batra (I'm ahead right now, and finished already). At 176 double pages Bava Batra is the longest of all tractates; actually, it's the third segment of a mega-tractate called Nezikim, which contains 414 double pages. So even at the breakneck speed of a double page a day, we've been in Nezikim for well over a year. Coming up is Sanhedrin, which deals with courts (and lots of other things, this being the Talmud).
By way of farewell from Nezikim, here's a story we passed a few weeks ago. The Gemara has spent many pages on the laws of shchiv merah - a person who is approaching death. There are various ways in which a shchiv merah differs from a healthy person when it comes to transfer of property. First, since they may have but little time left, the procedures of transferring property are mostly waived. There's no need for a contract, for example. Second, unlike a healthy person who gives someone property but then can't take it back since ownership has passed to the recipient - if a shchiv merah heals, he or she can claim the property back, since the presenting of it was predicated on approaching death which fortunately didn't happen. The way to gauge if a shchiv merah intended to give a present (irrevocable) or hand out property soon not to be needed anymore (revocable) is to see how much property was handed out. If the shchiv merah handed out all his or her property, clearly it was in the expectation of death and thus revocable.
There, I summarized the whole thing in one paragraph. Cool.
So here's the story, which I'll try to tell in a mildly accurate rendition of the original, minimal wording and all:
The sister of Rav Dimi ben Yosef owned a small orchard. Each time she was weak she'd give it too him, and take it back when she felt better. One time she was weak and sent for him:
- come, take.
- I don't want.
- come and craft it however you wish.
He came and wrote a contract which left her with part of it.
When she got up, she wanted it back.
[Rav Dimi apparently refused]
She went to Rav Nachman [perhaps the greatest judge of the period]. Rav Nachman sent to Rav Dimi: Come.
- No. What for. I left her part of it, and she signed a contract. [My case is waterproof].
- If you don't come I'll beat you with a whip that draws no blood [I'll excommunicate you].
[Rav Dimi apparently came]
[Rav Nachman to the witnesses]: What did she do?
- She cried vey I'm dying and I won't see my brother! [who was refusing to be bothered]
- In that case, she really felt she was dying, and giving presents right before death can be revoked [if death doesn't happen].
Bava Batra 151 a-b.
As I've often said, this thread starts and is explained here.
By way of farewell from Nezikim, here's a story we passed a few weeks ago. The Gemara has spent many pages on the laws of shchiv merah - a person who is approaching death. There are various ways in which a shchiv merah differs from a healthy person when it comes to transfer of property. First, since they may have but little time left, the procedures of transferring property are mostly waived. There's no need for a contract, for example. Second, unlike a healthy person who gives someone property but then can't take it back since ownership has passed to the recipient - if a shchiv merah heals, he or she can claim the property back, since the presenting of it was predicated on approaching death which fortunately didn't happen. The way to gauge if a shchiv merah intended to give a present (irrevocable) or hand out property soon not to be needed anymore (revocable) is to see how much property was handed out. If the shchiv merah handed out all his or her property, clearly it was in the expectation of death and thus revocable.
There, I summarized the whole thing in one paragraph. Cool.
So here's the story, which I'll try to tell in a mildly accurate rendition of the original, minimal wording and all:
The sister of Rav Dimi ben Yosef owned a small orchard. Each time she was weak she'd give it too him, and take it back when she felt better. One time she was weak and sent for him:
- come, take.
- I don't want.
- come and craft it however you wish.
He came and wrote a contract which left her with part of it.
When she got up, she wanted it back.
[Rav Dimi apparently refused]
She went to Rav Nachman [perhaps the greatest judge of the period]. Rav Nachman sent to Rav Dimi: Come.
- No. What for. I left her part of it, and she signed a contract. [My case is waterproof].
- If you don't come I'll beat you with a whip that draws no blood [I'll excommunicate you].
[Rav Dimi apparently came]
[Rav Nachman to the witnesses]: What did she do?
- She cried vey I'm dying and I won't see my brother! [who was refusing to be bothered]
- In that case, she really felt she was dying, and giving presents right before death can be revoked [if death doesn't happen].
Bava Batra 151 a-b.
As I've often said, this thread starts and is explained here.
Thought Experiment
Here's a mildly nasty thought experiment: What would happen if you exchanged Global Warming with Zionism?
The idea of the experiment is to take two issues which are dear to the same group of people, while switching the positioning of Good and Bad. It's an experiment, mind you, not a real comparison! For the purpose of following thought patterns. I'm not making a statement about global warming one way or the other. Not.
The rules of the game are that there's an accepted truth which any reasonable person can see and understand and accept and even defend were the need to arise. Global warming, say, or the right of the Jews to have a state in which to live their national lives. Each of these truths, however, does imply some practical positions: don't heat your home with the windows open, for example, or don't travel in airplanes; don't support Hamas, for example, or don't boycott computers. You get the idea.
Now, imagine there's a group of Bad People who've decided to disagree with the accepted wisdom. They'll go to any length to chip away at your beloved beliefs: they dig up old documents to prove your leaders have been conniving bastards all along. They cherry pick weaknesses in your generally impregnable defenses and use them to undermine the entire edifice. They're demagogues, populists, conniving sneaks, propagandists and generally Awful People. Oy oy oy oy.
Again, I'm not saying the comparison is in any way valid for anything - but do try to read any of the endless items at the Guardian, and especially the comments, using these experimental rules: Global Warming is like the Zionists; global warming skeptics are the enemies of Zionism. You may find it's fun. Here, start with this one, then go to this one for comments.
The idea of the experiment is to take two issues which are dear to the same group of people, while switching the positioning of Good and Bad. It's an experiment, mind you, not a real comparison! For the purpose of following thought patterns. I'm not making a statement about global warming one way or the other. Not.
The rules of the game are that there's an accepted truth which any reasonable person can see and understand and accept and even defend were the need to arise. Global warming, say, or the right of the Jews to have a state in which to live their national lives. Each of these truths, however, does imply some practical positions: don't heat your home with the windows open, for example, or don't travel in airplanes; don't support Hamas, for example, or don't boycott computers. You get the idea.
Now, imagine there's a group of Bad People who've decided to disagree with the accepted wisdom. They'll go to any length to chip away at your beloved beliefs: they dig up old documents to prove your leaders have been conniving bastards all along. They cherry pick weaknesses in your generally impregnable defenses and use them to undermine the entire edifice. They're demagogues, populists, conniving sneaks, propagandists and generally Awful People. Oy oy oy oy.
Again, I'm not saying the comparison is in any way valid for anything - but do try to read any of the endless items at the Guardian, and especially the comments, using these experimental rules: Global Warming is like the Zionists; global warming skeptics are the enemies of Zionism. You may find it's fun. Here, start with this one, then go to this one for comments.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Miflas HaKinneret
Among the many important things about Israel you'll never learn by following the media is the matter of the surface level of the Sea of Galilee. About a third of Israel's water is stored in the lake, but since the rest is in underwater aquifers they can't be seen; the Sea of Galilee (the Kinneret) is right out there where we all see it. And boy do we watch: Nachum Barnea, the country's top journalist, once remarked that being an Israeli means getting up each morning and checking how high (or low) the surface level of the Kinneret is. So much so, that the Hebrew word miflas (surface level) has been loaned to other existential worries: miflas ha-harada, for example, means the level of national dread - a term which doesn't even exist in any other language I'm aware of. (That miflas is actually rather low these days: defeating the 2nd Intifada, building the barrier, hitting Hamas in Gaza so hard that it stopped rocketing; all these things for which much of the world detests us have made life much less stressful, at least for the time being).
The surface of the Kinneret reaches its highpoint each year in May, then sinks until the rains of the following winter begin re-filling it, usually sometime in December. This summer it went lower than ever, which was very bad; the winter rains in the Galilee, however, have been plentiful this year.... But we couldn't know how much this was raising the sea surface, because the Water Authority staff was on strike since early December.
This week they resolved it, and we can now follow our Kinneret again. Here, even if you don't read Hebrew, I think you'll be able to figure it out. (Keep in mind that the Sea of Galilee is beneath Sea Level - 213.38 meters, as of this morning). Check it each day, to give yourself the feeling.
The surface of the Kinneret reaches its highpoint each year in May, then sinks until the rains of the following winter begin re-filling it, usually sometime in December. This summer it went lower than ever, which was very bad; the winter rains in the Galilee, however, have been plentiful this year.... But we couldn't know how much this was raising the sea surface, because the Water Authority staff was on strike since early December.
This week they resolved it, and we can now follow our Kinneret again. Here, even if you don't read Hebrew, I think you'll be able to figure it out. (Keep in mind that the Sea of Galilee is beneath Sea Level - 213.38 meters, as of this morning). Check it each day, to give yourself the feeling.
Creative Writing
Andrew is good for some things, you can't take that from him. Here, he's alerted me to this hilarious place in cyberspace where thousands of people are engaged in writing creative stuff about the most unlikely topic you'd ever dream of. It's humbling.
Gaza, Goldstone, and Freedom of Speech
Amos Harel at Haaretz has read Israel's response to the Goldstone Report and is impressed:
The new report apparently also tells of a brigadier and a colonel who were reprimanded last year over the way they authorized the use of white phosphorous shells two days before the end of the operation. The Israelis say this proves their investigations are serious; Israel's enemies will say it's merely the tip of the iceberg. I continue to say that Israel should have a standing procedure in which wars are automatically followed by independent investigations headed by a retired Supreme Court justice, since such investigations always find something of interest. True, no other country in the world does this, but Israel can afford to be unusual. If it were automatic it wouldn't seem like caving in to external pressure. As it is, we've had such an investigation after every large military operation since 1982 and a few smaller ones, and are only stronger for it. Wiser, too.
Meanwhile, this week a small NGO called Im Tirtzu has published a 112-page report on the sources of the Goldstone Report. (Their main website is in Hebrew, here; the executive summary of their report is here, and at it you can download the entire document). Maariv had a big write up about them over the weekend, here. The thesis: a small number of Israeli NGOs contributed significantly to Goldstone's ability to castigate Israel. Most of them are funded by one foundation, the New Israel Foundation (NIF).
The investigators not only carefully read the Goldstone Report, they also followed all its footnotes. There are 1,208 of them, containing 1,377 sources. 450 of the citations are to Israeli sources. 247 of them came from various Israeli NGOs (the others were citations of the Ministry of Foreign Affair's report and so on). Of those 247, 40 were either supportive of Israel or neutral. 207 were critical of Israel, which means that close to 20% of Goldstone's case against Israel came directly from Israeli sources (and some additional ones came indirectly, when international media or NGOs quoted critical Israelis). 92%, that's 191 of the sources against Israel, came from the 16 NIF-funded NGOs.
So far, so problematic. I've been writing about some of these NGOs for quite a while; now someone has done the research and demonstrated how significant their contribution is to a stridently dishonest document which attacks Israel.
Im Tirtzu has now launched a public campaign against the NIF, which funded these particular 16 organizations to the tune of $7,805,226 between 2006-2008 (The sums for 2009 are not yet public). You can see some of the campaign here. It's based on the fact that the Hebrew word Keren serves both for horn and foundation, and shows Naomi Hazan, former Meretz MK and now president of the NIF, wearing a horn. The prestigious Knesset Committee of Foreign and Security Affairs is to discuss the issue soon.
All of this has me uncomfortable. On the one hand, supporting enemy propaganda at time of war is serious. On the other hand, no-one seems to be saying the NIF or any of these organizations has done anything illegal, and indeed everyone seems to be saying the most that can be achieved is to heap opprobrium upon them - opprobrium they've earned with the sweat of their brows or probably the wearing out of their keyboards. Then again, no amount of such opprobrium will convince them to desist - on the contrary. They will now feel doubly righteous and also persecuted, and will soon be telling the world how undemocratic a society Israel is becoming. As with most of their allegations, this is fundamentally dishonest - but like much of it, there's just enough substance there to make the allegations stick. Such a public outing, justified as it may be, is vaguely unpleasant. We're a democracy, and they're allowed to lie; we're a strong nation, and should be able to tolerate a clutch of kooks. Then again, we're at war, and they're offering succor to the enemy.
Had they only done their watchdog task in Hebrew, I'd be applauding them. But, as I've often noted, much of their activity isn't aimed at their own society, it's aimed outwards.
Complicated.
Israel's detailed response to the Goldstone report shows that the country can, in fact, respond to accusations with more than complaints of anti-Semitism and endless repetitions of the mantra that "the Israel Defense Forces is the most moral army in the world." Drawn up by the Foreign Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the IDF prosecutor's office, the document gives a wide-ranging and well-argued reply to many of the claims raised by Goldstone.Not surprising, nice to hear, and I look forward to reading the document itself, not Harel's reading of it.
The new report apparently also tells of a brigadier and a colonel who were reprimanded last year over the way they authorized the use of white phosphorous shells two days before the end of the operation. The Israelis say this proves their investigations are serious; Israel's enemies will say it's merely the tip of the iceberg. I continue to say that Israel should have a standing procedure in which wars are automatically followed by independent investigations headed by a retired Supreme Court justice, since such investigations always find something of interest. True, no other country in the world does this, but Israel can afford to be unusual. If it were automatic it wouldn't seem like caving in to external pressure. As it is, we've had such an investigation after every large military operation since 1982 and a few smaller ones, and are only stronger for it. Wiser, too.
Meanwhile, this week a small NGO called Im Tirtzu has published a 112-page report on the sources of the Goldstone Report. (Their main website is in Hebrew, here; the executive summary of their report is here, and at it you can download the entire document). Maariv had a big write up about them over the weekend, here. The thesis: a small number of Israeli NGOs contributed significantly to Goldstone's ability to castigate Israel. Most of them are funded by one foundation, the New Israel Foundation (NIF).
The investigators not only carefully read the Goldstone Report, they also followed all its footnotes. There are 1,208 of them, containing 1,377 sources. 450 of the citations are to Israeli sources. 247 of them came from various Israeli NGOs (the others were citations of the Ministry of Foreign Affair's report and so on). Of those 247, 40 were either supportive of Israel or neutral. 207 were critical of Israel, which means that close to 20% of Goldstone's case against Israel came directly from Israeli sources (and some additional ones came indirectly, when international media or NGOs quoted critical Israelis). 92%, that's 191 of the sources against Israel, came from the 16 NIF-funded NGOs.
So far, so problematic. I've been writing about some of these NGOs for quite a while; now someone has done the research and demonstrated how significant their contribution is to a stridently dishonest document which attacks Israel.
Im Tirtzu has now launched a public campaign against the NIF, which funded these particular 16 organizations to the tune of $7,805,226 between 2006-2008 (The sums for 2009 are not yet public). You can see some of the campaign here. It's based on the fact that the Hebrew word Keren serves both for horn and foundation, and shows Naomi Hazan, former Meretz MK and now president of the NIF, wearing a horn. The prestigious Knesset Committee of Foreign and Security Affairs is to discuss the issue soon.
All of this has me uncomfortable. On the one hand, supporting enemy propaganda at time of war is serious. On the other hand, no-one seems to be saying the NIF or any of these organizations has done anything illegal, and indeed everyone seems to be saying the most that can be achieved is to heap opprobrium upon them - opprobrium they've earned with the sweat of their brows or probably the wearing out of their keyboards. Then again, no amount of such opprobrium will convince them to desist - on the contrary. They will now feel doubly righteous and also persecuted, and will soon be telling the world how undemocratic a society Israel is becoming. As with most of their allegations, this is fundamentally dishonest - but like much of it, there's just enough substance there to make the allegations stick. Such a public outing, justified as it may be, is vaguely unpleasant. We're a democracy, and they're allowed to lie; we're a strong nation, and should be able to tolerate a clutch of kooks. Then again, we're at war, and they're offering succor to the enemy.
Had they only done their watchdog task in Hebrew, I'd be applauding them. But, as I've often noted, much of their activity isn't aimed at their own society, it's aimed outwards.
Complicated.
Fisted Iran
President Obama's policy of offering an open hand to clench-fisted regimes was plausible, to my mind, if it strengthened the sinews of determination, not if it allowed the clenched fist to intimidate. It always had to be clearly temporary; if by a given time the fist was still clenched it would be met accordingly. If the Iranians were arming because they felt threatened, they might desist if they felt respected; if however they were arming because they're truly bellicose, it will still be possible to stop them, one way or another, once this has become clear. The determination to stop them will be strengthened by the comprehension of their bellicosity and the inevitable need to curtail it.
It was a policy with two targets: the Iranian hawks were to be encouraged to loosen up; and the Western doves were to be shown - if need be - the necessity of being resolute, even to take hawkish actions, convinced that the nicer options had failed.
Obama said the crucial date would be September 2009; he finally began acting at the end of January 2010, so the Iranians got an extra four months. Whether his actions will be effective remains to be seen; the amount of Iranian nuclear development completed under cover of the year given to them is also not yet publicly known.
What is clear, however, is that at least some of the home-team doves have no intention of being swayed by the exercise. For them, any saber rattling by the Americans is wrong, always:
It was a policy with two targets: the Iranian hawks were to be encouraged to loosen up; and the Western doves were to be shown - if need be - the necessity of being resolute, even to take hawkish actions, convinced that the nicer options had failed.
Obama said the crucial date would be September 2009; he finally began acting at the end of January 2010, so the Iranians got an extra four months. Whether his actions will be effective remains to be seen; the amount of Iranian nuclear development completed under cover of the year given to them is also not yet publicly known.
What is clear, however, is that at least some of the home-team doves have no intention of being swayed by the exercise. For them, any saber rattling by the Americans is wrong, always:
In Iran, after 12 months in office, Obama has got nowhere by making nice. He didn't try that hard. He didn't try for that long. And now it seems the US is reverting to type.
Yes, the Guardian. How did you guess?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
