Turning the Tide

When did the PA Prime Minister join the Likud?

2008-12-17T14:00:00.004+07:00

Trying to appear "centrist" to hide his repugnance for more Annapolis-style peace talks, Bibi Netanyahu - odds on favorite to become prime minister - ushered in a steady crew of left-leaning has-beens (Dan Meridor) and never-weres (Uzi Dayan) to the Likud party. Voters, however, caste aside the pretenders, choosing a slate that may actually deliver on the Likud platform.

Perhaps Bibi should have tried to recruit less obvious candidates - such as PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, whose recent op-ed in the Financial Times makes a strong case for implementing the Likud's ideas about "economic peace":

The Palestinian Authority remains steadfast in its peaceful pursuit of independence. Central to our approach is the idea that economic development is critical to the success of our state-building project...
Economic development is crucial to demonstrate to our people, particularly our youth, that diplomacy delivers what violence does not. Weariness with a seemingly endless peace process has caused many Palestinians to question the value of negotiations. Since the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, conditions have worsened for ordinary Palestinians.

A few days before Fayyad's piece appeared, Netanyahu published how own op-ed on the subject in the Chicago Tribune:

Palestinians have seen their everyday situation worsen. Many now believe that peace is beyond our grasp. I disagree. I believe that peace is possible, but achieving it requires a new approach.

Rather than building peace exclusively from the top down in political agreements, this new approach must also focus on building peace from the ground up with economic development.

From the looks of things, Bibi and his PA counterpart have quite a bit more in common than a strong dislike for Ehud Barak. They actually have a parallel vision for ending the conflict and improving the lot of the Palestinians. Maybe the doom-and-gloom prognosticators who worry that Bibi will shun the internationally-sanctioned "peace process" should pay more attention to what PA leaders say they really need.

In the meantime, Bibi should concentrate on pushing the real supporters of his policies - Fayyad, et al, to the front ranks of his party. I wonder what would happen if he offered Fayyad no. 20 on the Likud list....

Is Fiction Really More True?

2007-08-26T02:42:00.000+07:00

I recently finished reading James Frey's A Million Little Pieces - an amazing book permanently tarnished by the overblown controversy over its veracity. The book, published as a memoir of the author's recovery from drug and alcohol addiction, is set almost entirely in a rehab clinic, where the author makes friends, falls in love, and kicks his habits. It is a fascinating read, cover to cover, written with style in a voice that adds texture to the author's description of his experiences.

I first heard about the book when it was still considered a memoir. A friend who was studying addiction and recovery lent it to me as a case study just before the controversy broke. When I heard the book contained a good dose of fiction mixed in with the facts, I lost all interest and placed it on my shelf. It stayed there for two years. Finally, I was in the mood for a memoir and started reading it. But the controversy prevented me from suspending my disbelief. So I decided I would approach it as a novel, not as a memoir.

As soon as I did, something bewildering happened. The book began to pulse with Truth. It became the the most honest, forthright account of addiction and recovery I'd ever read. Instead of constantly questioning events that didn't ring true - such as the Novocaine-free dental surgeries - I couldn't get over how authentic the experience sounded. As I read, I kept thinking, "This guy MUST have gone through this to make it so vivid..."

As fiction, the book became truer than a memior. It no longer carried the burden of factual integrity. Instead of questioning various details, I marvelled at the book's authenticity.

I noticed a similar phenomon in a review of the Nanny Diaries published in the LA Times today.

The book was based on the experiences of its authors, child-psychology majors who put themselves through college working as nannies for the super rich of the Upper East Side, logging 30 such jobs between them. The characters of Nanny, Mr. and Mrs. X and 4-year-old Grayer may have been composites, but they were so dead-on they launched a thousand paranoid trips along Park
Avenue.

In other words, the characters weren't real. But they - and their world - were so authentic that people believed they were actually based on them. People recognized the essential truth in the characters and the setting without getting bogged down on the details that may have failed the
journalism fact test.

So maybe fiction is more real than fact. When it comes to reality, a little lie may actually be the biggest truth

Vonnegut on Wolfe

2007-04-16T01:23:00.000+07:00

Kurt Vonnegut, one of my first favorite writers, died last Wednesday. That day, I happened to be reading a book about one of my more recent favorite writers, Tom Wolfe.

So, as a tribute to Vonnegut with a nod towards Wolfe, here is a review of Wolfe's first book Vonnegut published in the New York Times.

The conclusion: "Excellent book by a genius who will do anything to get attention."

"Rocky" Marciano Remains Undefeated

2007-03-04T15:05:00.000+07:00

Rocky Marciano made a miraculous return to the ring one last time to reclaim his heavyweight championship, winning a record 50th straight bout without a defeat last week in Herzliya...

Well, OK, it was actually a barroom brawl, and the fighter was MK Yoram "Rocky" Marciano - not the heavyweight champion who died in 1969. But it's easy to get the two confused these days. The real Rocky retired as the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history, winning all 49 of his fights, 43 by knockout. The Israeli "Rocky" took on a crew of security guards, pushing his record to 3-0 in one night, all by TKO.

The fight took place late Wednesday night. "Rocky" and his friends were drinking in a crowded pub, minding their own business. At about 1:30, the crew decided to leave, and went to the back door to exit discretely. But the security guards wouldn't let him out, insisting he leave through the front door like everyone else. Understandably, "Rocky" could barely contain his anger. After than, accounts vary, but all agree that punches were thrown.

By all accounts, "Rocky" made an impressive showing. "He went wild and started yelling, saying, 'A public official must not be assaulted like this, people should learn that a public official should be treated nicely," a witness told Yediot Aharonot after the fight. But no one denied he handled the three security guards singlehandedly.

Some witnesses even suggested "Rocky" was channeling the former champ - possibly the greatest fighter in boxing history. This is how Haaretz described the incident: "Marciano shoved the guard, and the guard shoved back. The MK pulled out his Knesset pass and repeated his demand to be allowed out, but the guard again refused and summoned his superior."

Outnumbered and outgunned, "Rocky" emerged the clear winner: "When this man arrived, however, Marciano shoved him, and also threatened, cursed and spit at him, the source said. At that point, both sides called the police" - to stop the fight, no doubt. It was the bar fight equivalent to throwing in the towel.

Chaos and It's Discontents

2007-03-02T20:04:00.000+07:00

For the past few months, I've been learning Hebrew in a small group setting. The class usually starts with one of the students speaking about something interesting that happened the previous week. Yesterday - the last day of the class - only two of us showed up, so it was mostly a dialogue between us, with the teacher correcting us every now and then.

The topic of the conversation was an Israeli-Palestinian encounter shabbaton the other guy recently attended. It was held in Beit Jala, which I guess is a place both sides could reach relatively easily. Apparently, there were participants from all over, including Gaza, Ramallah, and Sderot. The guy is genuinely pro-Israel but also extremely tolerant, with a strong interest in inter-faith and inter-cultural activities. I'm always interested in hearing his impression of these types of events.

The encounter went well, he said. All of the participants managed to express their feelings about what was happening without stirring any conflict. However, he said he was often frustrated during these events because too little is done to challenge the prevailing mindset on both sides - the Palestinians all think Israel is responsible for everything bad in the world (or at least in their world) and too many of the Israelis go along with this passively, and even apologetically, as if Israel alone is responsible for all the check-points and the border closures.

As I listened to his story, I experienced a strange feeling. On the one hand, I wished I were there at the Shabbaton in order to challenge people when they said things I would find simply wrong. For example, one of the participants promoted the idea that Israel should remove the checkpoints because there aren't any more terrorist attacks. I read about attempted suicide bombings every week, and I'm sure the checkpoints make it harder, so I think it's cheap talk for Palestinians to demand we take greater risks for their benefit. The Palestinians may be right to complain about checkpoints, but the complaint should be directed the other way, at the Palestinians responsible for making us feel that we need more security.

But on the other hand, as the conversation continued, I realized the problem was much, much deeper than I was making it out to be. During the Shabbaton, someone raised the point that there was no viable Palestinian peace movement. One of the Palestinians said there was no movement because the pro-peace viewpoint was strongly suppressed and those who attempt to hold peace rallies were threatened and intimidated, and sometimes even beaten.

After hearing all of this, I started to reframe the problem in my head. Maybe much of the problem stems from the fact that there is no protected freedom of expression in the Palestinian territories. Or that there is no real rule of law. If people cannot rally for peace, what chance is there that the idea will gain any traction?

I don't have any solutions. But I've known for quite some time that the conflict won't end until there is a genuine change on the Palestinian side. Israel can do everything on earth for peace, and it won't be enough without substantial change in the Palestinians. That change won't come easily. But part of the answer, I think, has to address the difficulties encountered by those who want to make it.

Someone should write a song about this

2007-02-20T02:28:00.000+07:00

"Slim" Shkedy: Next War May Be in Space

2007-02-01T18:24:00.000+07:00

I remember when Prince's "1999" had apocalyptic undertones. Now it's the theme for a retro party.

We've definitely entered the Jetsons Era for good. First there were those 3rd generation cell phones that let you see the person on the other side. Now, I find out that Israel is preparing to fight in space.

Israeli Air Force Commander Elazar "Slim" Shkedy told the second Ilan Ramon Annual International Space Conference in Herzliya that China's missile test, which successfully brought down one of its own satellites two weeks ago, has ushered in a new Star Wars era. Israel must make immediate plans to protect its space assets against attacks.

"Battle in space is on our agenda, whether we want it there or not,” Shkedy said. “Within five to 10 years this will sadly be very relevant. There may be those who would seek to harm our forces in space, as they would our forces on land and at sea. We could face this reality in a high-intensity conflict in the future."

Forces in space? High-intensity conflict? Turns out, the Israeli Air Force changed its name last year. It's now called The Israel Air and Space Command.

As far as I knew, Israel had one little satellite in space that moved so slowly, it could only manage a single photograph of Iran's nuclear facilities every four days. Shkedy makes it sound like we have whole battalions up there building a Death Star. We can't stop Kassam rockets, but we're preparing to battle Imperial fighters traveling at warp speed?

Well, it turns out Israel spends $50 million a year on its "space program." And the Space Command is working on creating "sophisticated ground-based and airborne laser systems." I think it's time to appoint George Lukas as the new Defense Minister. At least he understands this stuff. Just don't let him write any more movies. Another boring Star Wars film could start a world war.

Barack Obama For President - Of Israel

2007-01-25T22:20:00.000+07:00

With Moshe Katsav's term as Israel's President effectively over, Israeli legislators now have the daunting task of finding a suitable successor -someone capable of filling Katsav's sizeable shoes. The candidate must be brash, independent, and most importantly, he must be sqeaky clean. The obvious candidate? Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who recently declared himself a Presidential candidate in America for 2008.

The man wants to be a President. I say we give him a chance! Why wait for 2008? Barack for President 2007!

Just as in America, Obama is a something of a darkhorse in the race for Israel's Presidency. But he can do something no one in Israel can do: bridge the gap between Israel's rival camps and create peace and harmony between different segments of the population. And isn't that the real role of the President - to unite the country and represent the nation in an admirable way, as Katsav did for so many years before his recent troubles?

Plus, if Obama is elected President (of Israel), it would mark another giant leap in Israel's relations with the US. He speaks excellent English (unlike interim President Dalia Itzik), and he probably has no clue about Israeli politics, so he won't be a constant meddler (like previous President Ezer Weitzman). I would even be willing to bet he would champion instituting Sundays off like no one before him. That alone is enough to make him President in my book.

But honestly, there is so much more. Obama could herald a new era in Israeli politics, a era of good, clean government that makes Israelis proud to be, uhm...Israeli like him. I think its worth a try. Can we really do worse that Katsav? And if Barack is Israel's President, he probably won't run in the US election in 2008. So we'd be killing two birds with one stone.

How Do I Spell Coward? C-A-R-T-E-R

2007-01-12T17:30:00.000+07:00

I was probably the only person with strong pro-Israel views to be excited about Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, when I first heard about it in November. The book hadn't come out yet, and its contents were unknown. But based on the title, I thought something important was about to happen: a courageous criticism of the Palestinians from a noted supporter, someone not afraid to challenge the burgeoning apartheid policy in the Palestinian territories and to call for peace moves instead of violence.

I thought The Left finally understood what Hamas' election means for peace, and I thought Carter was going to vent his frustration at the Palestinian failure to respond to Israeli efforts - post-Barak at Camp David, post-disengagement, post-Kadima and realignment.

Obviously, I should have known better.

Carter is not only a coward. He's a a liar as well. He says he wrote the book in order to stir debate in America. Then he rejects Alan Dershowitz's offer for a public debate. Obviously, debate isn't what he wants, at least not with people like Dershowitz, who understand the issues. Carter would rather aim for the ignorant masses and infect them with his highly biased views. Ignorant people don't talk back, and there a lot of them around. Carter's strategy is to aim low and run. It isn't hard to claim the high ground when your audience is a collection of intellectual midgets.

But running away from Dershowitz is only one part of Carter's cowardice. The other is his broadside accusation that Jews have stifled debate in America. I guess he feels that Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and the rest are actually praising Israel. And when he looks over at Europe, I guess he sees a balanced discussion there, one where both sides are treated with equal respect. Only a mind like that could believe making false accusations against Israel is a good idea. Nothing like spreading a vicious lie in pursuit of a lower truth.

Its too bad, since Carter was perfectly placed to make a real statement to the Palestinians just as the window for a two-state solution is starting to close. But unquestioned support for the Palestinians no matter how far from peace they move is a disease without a cure, and Carter is clearly infected. The best we can do now is to try to limit the spread of the virus.

I Didn't Think I Had an Accent

2006-12-31T16:33:00.000+07:00

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Northeast Judging by how you talk you are probably from north Jersey, New York City, Connecticut or Rhode Island. Chances are, if you are from New York City (and not those other places) people would probably be able to tell if they actually heard you speak.
Philadelphia
The Inland North
The Midland
The South
Boston
The West
North Central
What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

(Hat tip - Orthodox Anarchist)

Ta-Ta to Tutu

2006-12-12T15:06:00.000+07:00

Looks like Desmond Tutu won't be making a visit to Israel after all. Upset that Israel refused to roll out the red carpet for His Holiness, Tutu packed off in a huff, taking his six-person band of merry UN pranksters with him.

Too bad. Nothing would help the peace effort more than another biased report on Israel from the UN Human Rights Council, a body so blatantly anti-Israel that it makes one long for the old, discredited UN Commission on Human Rights. In only six months of existance, the UNHRC has managed to condemn Israel eight times, compared to none for any other state in the world.

It was clearly going for number nine when it picked outspoken Israel critic Tutu to head its mission to Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip, where after days of heavy fighting between Israeli troops and Palesinian terrorists attempting to fire Kassam rockets at Israeli civilians, an Israeli shell veered off course and killed 19 innocent Palestinians. Although the IDF accepted responsibilty for the incident, it also claimed it was an accident. The UN wasn’t so sure, and it dispatched Tutu to investigate.

But just to make sure Tutu didn't veer off the script at crucial junctures, the UNHRC imposed a narrow mandate on his mission - to assess the situation of victims, address the needs of survivors and make recommendations on ways to protect Palestinian civilians against further Israeli attacks. The mission would not examine any Palestinian complicity in the matter, like the use of Beit Hanoun as a site for launching missiles at Israeli civilians, or even recommend ways to protect Israeli civilians from more Palestinian attacks. That apparently would muddle the issue, making it harder to issue another one-sided condemnation of Israel - the UNHRC's bread and butter.

Given the UNHRC's track record, it is not surprising that Israeli officials announced they would refuse to cooperate with the mission. As a sign of protest, the government refused to grant the UNsters diplomatic visas to conduct their work. Instead, the government offered tourist visas, an accurate represention of how the government viewed the mission's activities. Tutu refused to come as a tourist and demanded diplomatic status. The issue was still being reviewed when Tutu folded the mission.

On his way out, he blamed the Israeli government for dragging its feet on the matter."At times not making a decision is making a decision," Tutu told reporters, reminding them that his wife remained hospitalized while he waited for Israel to grant him another shot at bigger headlines. "We couldn't obviously wait in limbo indefinitely," he explained.

The idea that Tutu thinks Israel is obligated to work on his timeframe is a sign of arrogance befitting a man who would accept a mission to look at only one side of a conflict and present it as the accurate truth. The fact that he would go on record saying Israel made a decision on the matter when, in fact, it did not confirms Israeli concerns that he would ignore the truth when it interfered with his preconcieved notions. His pathetic references to his hospitalized wife shows how far he's willing to go to manipulate public opinion.

I say kudos to the Israeli government, which, for onces, handled a tough situation the right way. Let Tutu make excuses for why he can't play by Israel's rules; Israel owes him nothing. And best of all, Israel will not have to deal with another biased report being filed on the UN's stationary. May this incident hightlight yet again how the UNHRC cares more about politicizing human rights than in helping promote them. Will there ever be a UN mission sent to focus on Israeli human rights and condemn Palestinians for violating them? Not as long as the UNHRC thinks Desmond Tutu is an appropriate choice to lead an investigation.

Roundup

2006-10-22T20:54:00.000+07:00

* Two weeks after Google buys YouTube the party's over.

* "Original Beatle" Pete Best surfaces to campaign for Jewish candidate running for Kansas House of Representatives. Joe Lieberman probably could have landed him if he had just a bit more clout...

* Village Voice reviews two new books on the American underground - one on the New York literary scene from '74 to '92 and one on how the Whole Earth Catalog morphed into a computer movement.

* I get nervous when Robert Aumann, Nobel Prize winner for his work on game theory, starts to doubt Israel's long term survival.

* Moment magazine asks if Jewish children should trick or treat, and offers opinions from across the Jewish spectrum. Renewal Rabbi Pamela Frydman offers this nugget: "Halloween is a time to teach piku’ah nefesh—protecting or saving a life. A few examples: When trick-or-treating children should be accompanied by an adult. Teens are safer at a Halloween party than going out alone. Products that are unsealed shouldn’t be eaten. Large amounts of candy can be dangerous to our health. "

Well, Goodbye to All That....

2006-10-15T20:11:00.000+07:00

It may seem odd given Israel's frequent elections, but I had the opportunity to vote for Natan Sharansky - the only politician I ever actually voted FOR in my life - only once. It was in 2003, the same year Russian immigrants abandoned Sharansky's immigrant party, dropping it to a Knesset-minimum two seats and forcing it to merge with the Likud, never to be heard from again.

It feels particularly odd to me because Sharansky's political career roughly matches my time in Israel. I was at WUJS in Arad during his first election campaign in 1996, when he came out of nowhere (besides a Soviet prison) and won seven seats in Knesset. The same year, I read his autobiography, Fear No Evil, and decided he should be Prime Minister.

I wasn't alone. When I mentioned Sharansky to English speakers, many seemed to agree: Sharansky was the next great Jewish leader, the man to help us build a real Jewish state. When the security situation finally recedes to the background, we reasoned, Sharansky would help heal the internal rifts that were eating away our souls.

As a politician, Sharansky was an inspiriation. He talked about the Jewish people as an organic whole, inside or outside Israel. When a Jewish community in the diaspora was threatened, he argued, the Jewish state was obligated to show support. And the same was true in the inverse. Jews everywhere would support Israel because they were part of its development, even if they never set foot on its land. These were magical ideas for a recent immigrant like me, who wanted nothing more than to feel a sense of common destiny with Israel. This was exactly the kind of state I wanted to help Sharansky build.

When he dropped a seat in the next election, the loss was tempered by his success wresting the Interior Ministry from Shas, which held a mighty 17 seats to Sharansky's six. His party's infamous "Shas Kontrol? Net, nash Kontrol!" slogan - directed at Russian speakers - gave a powerful voice to the new generation of immigrants. And when his party dropped to four seats after Roman Bronfman split off and later joined Meretz, I figured he'd get his seats back in the next election.

By the time the next election came around, Israel had been branded an illegitimate apartheid state at the UN's Conference on Racism in Durban and Palestinian suicide bombers struck Israeli coffee shops, shopping malls, and buses in unprecedented numbers as world leaders condemned Israel for defending its citizens. Someone had to stand up for the human rights of the Israeli people. The times, it seemed, were ripe for Sharansky to fulfill his destiny as the leader of the Jews.

Unfortunatly, the Israeli public never took to Sharansky as the Anglo population did. And when the Russian sector also lost interest, the party was sunk. I volunteered on his campaign and watched the party drop into oblivion. But almost immediately, it looked like a blessing in disguise. As a minister in the new Likud government, Sharansky was responsible for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs. Who better to handle these roles than Sharansky? And as a member of the Likud party, he stood a real chance of winning the office of Prime Minister.

The natural outgrowth of the Yisrael Ba'aliyah party's implosion was the disappearance of Israel's only true and inclusive immigrant party. The Russians he had represented moved on, either to Avigdor Lieberman's ideological Yisrael Beiteinu/National Union party or to other "Israeli" parties. They had integrated better and faster than anyone anticipated.

I, however, still felt like an immigrant and longed to have my party back. But now that Sharansky announced his retirement from politics, it seems like a good time to say goodbye to all that. The time has come to lose the immigrant identity and start feeling like an Israeli. After nearly 10 years, the time has come.

Easier said than done. But all things must start somewhere. I'm grateful to Sharansky for all the inspiration he provided. And I'm grateful for his latest lesson - the need to know when its time to move on in life.

Sticks, Twigs, and Lemons

2006-10-09T13:30:00.000+07:00

The Arba Minnim shuk at Mahane Yehuda:

A wise man once told me how to find a good, kosher etrog: Find the choosiest costumers in the shop and watch them pick up and discard etrog after etrog. When they find one they need to examine closely, maybe even pull out a magnifying glass, and then put it back - grab that one.

I thought I found my etrog when I saw these guys. They spent at least 10 minutes going back and forth on this one before deciding to buy it.

Jesus Resigned for Their Sins

2006-10-04T16:17:00.000+07:00

What would Jesus do if he were a newspaper publisher and his reporters were taking cash from the Bush administration to produce propaganda?

He'd resign, let the reporters off scot-free, and declare the rules against such payments too ambiguous to hold the reporters responsible.

At least that's what he'd do if he were Jesus Diaz Jr, publisher of the Miami Herald and the Spanish-language El Nuevo Herald. According to this story in the New York Times, Diaz originally fired two reporters and ended his papers' relationship with a freelancer when he discovered that they accepted money to produce "commentary" on the anti-Castro Radio and TV Marti.

But in a show of infinite compassion, he reinstated all of them and blamed himself for "losing control of his newsroom." He also announced that six other reporters who accepted payments would not be disciplined.

Apparently, El Nuevo Herald already tilts to the anti-Castro line. So when Dias fired the reporters for promoting the same position, Cuban-American readers in Miami called it a double standard and demanded that Dias resign. Naturally, Jesus complied, suffering alone for the sins of the many.

So, we now we know what Jesus would do. But what about his successor? New publisher David Landsberg indicated he would take a hard line against reporters taking payments. “We’re passionate down here,” he explained. “People want to do the right thing for their people and their company.”

Sign of the Times

2006-09-22T14:27:00.000+07:00

"Olmert, Peretz, Halutz - Go Home"

The Fake Photo War

2006-09-19T02:22:00.000+07:00

The IDF and the Israeli government may be feeling fallout from the war in Lebanon, but I predict the war's greatest long-term impact will be on the field of photojournalism, which was repeatedly exposed for publishing staged, manipulated, or outright phony pictures throughout the war.

Thanks to the rise of social journalism in the form of blogs and talkbacks, no picture published by the major media is safe from the probing eyes of sceptical readers. And the more bloggers dig, the more fake photos they find. Even the New York Times was recently flagged - erroneously - for publishing a photo that appeared to be treated in photoshop.

Unfortunately, comments from photo editors project a defensive posture rather than a spirit of working to regain credibility. The article "Photojournalism in the Age of Scrutiny," published by the Poynter Institute, looks at two recent cases: the NYT photo featuring a microphone cord that seems to vanish unnaturally and an AP photo of Katie Couric that was touched up by CBS to make Couric appear 20 pounds lighter. (Both photos are included in the article).

Michele McNally, the Times’ assistant managing editor for photography, characterized the controversy as more a reflection of the general questioning of photojournalism than as specific criticism aimed at the Times.

"Ever since the most recent Reuters discovery (of altered photos of the Israeli-Hezbollah fighting) many people have taken it upon themselves to question the veracity of all images" she said in an e-mail to Poynter Online. "One should note, during this particular war, each side is continually trying to prove an 'agenda' in all media outlets. They call into question everything, every usage, balance. You cannot persuade either side that you have (no agenda) because to them, there is no other truth but their own."

So much for taking responsibility. Someone should inform Ms. McNally that Reuters didn't "discover" the altered photos it was publishing. Bloggers like Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs) did. She should also note that ALL of the altered or staged photos fom the conflict that have surfaced so far were manipulated to make Israel look bad. Surely someone has some kind of agenda when that happens, and editors at the New York Times would be wise to consider that as new anti-Israel photos land on their desks.

But McNally is right about two things. The Times photo with the disappearing wire was actually an optical illusion, not a fake photo. And there are people who believe "there is no other truth but their own." Too bad so many of them work for the press.

On War: Winning and Losing

2006-08-15T22:36:00.000+07:00

What does it mean to win a war?

Around here, there has been too much talk about Israel "losing" to Hezbollah. That would be true if Hezbollah actually won anything. But it got battered, lost most of its fighting corps and weapons, its position along Israel's border, the element of surprise it used to such advantage, and it must now reckon with the Lebanese people who experienced a trauma while Hezbollah pursued the interests of Syria and Iran. But Hezbollah survived, at least they can claim that.

Some victory. It would be called losing by anyone but the weak and feable.

The idea that Israel lost reinforces the unrealistic standards we demand from the IDF. If the IDF generals snap their fingers and the Arabs don't run for cover, the IDF was defeated. After all, Israel's security depends on Arabs believing that the IDF is invulnerable. If it takes a few casualties while fighting on the enemy's turf, it shows it can be beaten.

The way people talk about Hezbollah reminds me of how people used to discuss Yasser Arafat. The Palestinian leader completely failed to bring bring anything good to his people despite numerous opportunities. But newspapers still lauded him for his "shrewd" negotiating style and leadership. Even in his final years, while he sat in a bullet-ridden room in constant fear of assassination, op-eds would appear asserting that Arafat would likely emerge the clear winner of the intifada.

So, what does it mean to win? For Israel, it means maintaining its strategic edge and its psychological advantage over the Arab world. It also means achieving the goals it set out in the first days of the conflict. No matter how we look at it, Israel failed to squeeze the kidnapped soldiers out of Hezbollah's hands. And it failed to "break" Hezbollah's backbone. But I'm not sure at all that Israel's strategic edge has been harmed, despite what some extremists say.

Israel showed that a daily barrage of rockets will not bring its citizens to their knees, demanding an immediate ceace-fire (like in Lebanon). Except for the kidnapping that ignited the whole month of fighting, Israel did not experience a breach of its territory on the ground. It couldn't stop the rockets from inside Lebanon, but it managed to protect its citizens pretty well - Hezbollah fired 4,000 rockets and killed 41 civilians.

All in all, I don't see how anyone could say Israel came out of the war looking vulnerable. I think Lebanon's state of disaster will prevent another Hezbollah attack in the near future. Syria has always been a big talker. But if Israel was being defeated by the mighty Hezbollah, why didn't Syria jump in and capture the Golan Heights? Because talks is cheap; rebuilding road, bridges, and its electrical system are expensive.

But still, it is impossible to ignore the "shortcoming" Olmert alluded to in his speech before Knesset. Israel had complete air supremacy throughout the fighting but it wasn't enough to keep the soldiers safe or to push Hezbollah out of its strongholds. I don't know what the higher eschelon knew about Hezbollah's capabilities, but soldiers returning from the field consistently expressed surprise about what they were facing. Someone has to answer for these failures. It will be interesting to see who goes and who stays when it all plays out. Then we'll know the war's real winners and losers.

Is Rock Conservative?

2006-05-25T14:46:00.001+07:00

The National Review seems to think so. Check out their list of the top 50 'Conservative' rock songs here. Bob Dylan's pro-Israel "Neighborhood Bully" comes in 12th.

But looking at that list got me thinking....

When I was in high school, I thought rock music was the voice of youth and rebellion. That's what Rolling Stone magazine told me it was, anyway. But the more I paid attention, the more I suspected something else going on, something that had little to do with challenging authority, self-expression, or even Woodstock.

The first hint was rock radio. No matter which station I tuned into, everything they played was stuck in a single format. I tried "Classic rock," which played and played and overplayed the Giants of Rock, all of whom are now museum displays at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That wasn't youth; it wasn't rebellion. There was some Woodstock there, but that belonged to a previous generation. It was a fun place to visit when the Grateful Dead or Bob Dylan rolled through town, but I knew I couldn't live there.

So I tuned to the local college radio station, the precursor to the "alternative" format. College kids are eclectic, I thought. They're young, and they hate authority. No one's going to tell them what to play. That may be true, but in the 80's, someone should have. The big star on the station was the pre-breakout REM, a band that embodied everything I came to hate about college rock. They cultivated a pretentious aura of having a "message" - which never actually materialized - and their sound came to define that era of college radio. Any band that didn't sound like them had a hard time getting played.

bands that didn't fit either format could still get exposure on the other rock and pop stations, all of which played "the hottest hits first," and kept their playlists down to the top five songs on that week's Billboard magazine charts. After a while I was no longer sure if the songs all sounded the same, or if I there was actually just one song that they played over and over. Either way, it was miles away from being the voice of youth and rebellion. It was youth, but it was about as subversive as a can of Coca-Cola. I wasn't surprised, then, when that song each station kept playing incessently turned up in a Coke commercial. It was only a matter of time.

My next insight into the nature of rock came when I actually started meeting people who played in rock bands. These people were far more varied than rock radio, but it was clear that rock had lost its progressive edge. The more time I spent in the rock scene the more I saw how much the music had become the sound of mainstream culture.

There were also rebels, real ones who chose to live on the edges of society, and they were young. And rock was still a vehicle for their self expression. But no one likes to live as a parody. Throught their eyes, I witnessed rock's death in the rise and fall of Nirvana. These rebels were the first to embrace the band, finding a soul mate in Kurt Cobain. But they were horrified to see the fans the ban attracted as Nirvana climbed up rock's Mt. Everest. As they slowly left the scene, ashamed to be associated with the people they live to subvert, rock lost its last remaining claim to youth and rebellion.

So rock is dead; long live rock. It has gone the way of be-bop - still walking around, breathing the fumes remaining from its creative period. But who needs it anyway. Hip hop, for anyone who hasn't heard, is today's rock music. It's true. I read it in Rolling Stone.

How long before someone publishes a list of the top 50 conservative hip hop records?

Yom HaAtzmaut in the Old City

2006-05-04T15:30:00.000+07:00

Playing Russian Roulette with Human Rights

2006-05-02T20:54:00.000+07:00

If human rights groups genuinely uphold universal principles, why do they ignore the most basic right of Israeli civilians – the right to life?

A group of six Israeli and Palestinian “human rights” NGOs did just that last week when they petitioned Israel’s High Court to reverse the IDF’s decision to reduce the “safety zone” for Palestinians who fire Kassam rockets at Israel.

Previously, when Palestinian terrorists fired Kassam rockets, the IDF refrained from firing back if Palestinian civilians were spotted within a 300-meter radius of their targets. But since this policy made no dent in the number of Palestinian fired at Israel, the army reduced the zone to 100 meters – the length of a football field in every direction.

Palestinian terrorists often fire rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip, hoping the Israeli army will refrain from retaliation in order to avoid civilian casualties. Although the tactic is a clear violation of international law, which forbids armed groups from using civilian areas to launch attacks, it has proven successful – thanks to the IDF’s concern for human life.

But the smaller safety zone means terrorists can expect less protection from the Palestinian civilians they exploit - and endanger - for their safety. It also means they have less time to escape after they fire at Israel, preventing them from digging into their positions and taking accurate aim at their targets. Ultimately, it means fewer Israeli casualties.

But the safety of Israeli civilians is not on the agenda of the highly politicized NGOs that filed the petition, including B’tselem and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHRI). These NGOs, along with other human rights groups active in the Middle East, routinely eliminate the context of terror in their reports on the region. In some cases they may also condemn suicide bombings, but their human rights analyses of Israeli responses to terror are usually conducted in a vacuum. Their intention is to create a distorted picture of the security situation, presenting Israel as the constant aggressor, even when it responds to Palestinian attacks like Kassam fire aimed at Israeli schools, houses, and similar targets.

Indeed, the NGOs’ attorney Michael Sfard illustrates this point clearly in his petition, which essentially demands that Israel provide Palestinian terrorists the widest safety zone possible. By reducing the zone, the petition states, “the army is playing Russian roulette with the lives of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by deliberately including them within firing range.”

Actually, it’s the terrorists who are deliberately including Israeli (and Palestinian) civilians within firing range. And the terrorists leave no “safety zone” for Israelis. The only safety zone Israeli civilians have is created by the IDF’s efforts to stop the Kassam fire.

Human rights NGOs distinguish themselves from political advocacy groups by projecting an image of impartiality. On its website, B’tselem asserts that "all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights." PHRI claims its mission “is to secure the right of all individuals to equal access to health care services regardless of political, national, religious, gender or socio-economic considerations.”

But the sad reality is that these groups abandoned Israeli civilians long ago. And if human rights groups that fly the banner of impartiality no longer care about Israelis, the principle of universalism is damaged. In essence, these NGOs are the ones playing Russian roulette with human rights - but win or lose Israelis will usually pay the price.

Book Review: Postville - A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America

2006-04-10T01:37:00.000+07:00

What happens when Brooklyn Lubavitchers move to rural Iowa to open America's largest kosher slaughterhouse? That's the premise of Stephan Bloom's 2000 account of how the Hasidim took over the tiny Iowa town of Postville and how the locals responded. The slaughterhouse turns out to be a financial windfall to the town, employing hundreds of workers and increasing the town's population by more than a third. But it isn't enough to placate the local residents, who resent the Lubavitchers' insularity and their outright refusal to take on the local customs. Not long after the Hasidim arrive, battle lines begin to form throughout Postville.

To call it a clash of cultures is to put it mildly: the two groups could not have been more different. Bloom spends most of the book talking to people on both sides of the divide and finds each side simmering with hatred for the other.

The book opens with the local residents preparing to vote on whether to annex the land occupied by the slaughterhouse in order to levy taxes on the property. The Hasidic owners of the plant oppose the move and threaten to move out of town if the measure passes, taking the town's economy with them. Both sides call the vote a referendum on whether the Hasidim should stay or go. The locals have to decide if the financial benefits are worth the aggravations they face daily from the Hasidim, most of whom treat the goyim with complete disdain - if they acknowledge them at all.

Embedded in the story is a second, more interesting story of the author's own Jewish identity and how it is challenged by both the Lutheran locals and the Jewish outsiders. Shortly before the story begins, Bloom accepts a job teaching journalism at a university in Iowa City and moves his wife and son to the country after spending his entire life in the city. Although a thoroughly assimilated Jew, Bloom finds that the culture shock and isolation he experiences brings out a longing to connect to his people. He sets out looking for Jews, eventually finding the Postville Hasidim.

For Bloom, writing about the clash between the Postville residents and the Lubavitchers is an opportunity to gauge how he feels about both. In the early parts of the book, he clearly wants to side with the Hasidim. He strongly suspects the locals opposition to the Jews is simple anti-Semitism. Several locals confirm his suspicions, referring to the Jews as "users" looking to fleece the town every chance they get. One man tells the author he knew trouble was coming when he saw the Jews moving in. "I thought, well, now we're going to be Israel in Postville," the man says. "And that's what Postville has become! Little Israel."

But the more Bloom interacts with the locals, the more their simple ways win him over. And as he spends more time with the Hasidim, he sees why they engender so much opposition. The Hasidim he meets are inconsiderate, overbearing, and petty. They proudly proclaim their racism toward non-Jews. They treat the author as a kiruv project but it's hard to believe they understand what sort of impression they are making on the modern, assimilated Jew. He spends Shabbat with an "exemplary" Lubavitcher, but is shocked to hear him talk of breaking promises to non-Jewish business partners. Every interaction he has with the Hasidim leave him wondering what he has in common with his co-religionists.

Those interactions - a clash of cultures between the modern Jew and the Hasid - are often fascinating. They reveal an almost unbridgable gap between two types of Jews. Bloom sees Judaism as a religion, not a culture or a nationality; the Hasidim view it as an all-encompassing lifestyle. Bloom strives for universalism; the Hasidim frustrate him with their dogged particularism.

By the end, Bloom has drawn a vivid portrait of today's assimilated Jew. He also makes it clear why the Lubavitchers will never reach him. To his credit, Bloom seems to approach the Hasidim with an open mind. But no one would stand these people very long. There is hardly anything about them that isn't off-putting. It's no wonder they clashed with the Iowa locals. But the locals don't come off much better. They demand things the Hasidim can't do, and make little effort to understand the differences between them.

Early in the book, Bloom says he was interested in the story as a test of tolerance. Unfortunately, there isn't much tolorence on display in Postville, a small town but big enough to support the weight of two distinct cultures.

Links and Stuff

2006-04-06T17:30:00.000+07:00

The Cantankerous Camel shows that the recent calm is only an illusion.

Treppenwitz gives us the "mirror" test to locate our biases.

Melanie Phillips puts the recent academic diatribe against the Jewish lobby in America into perspective. I admire the way English people have moved away from the term "anti-Semitism" and now refer to Jew-hatred as "Judeophobia," a more apt term for the phenomenon.

Israeli Shay Doron helps Maryland defeat Duke for the The NCAA Women's Basketball Championship. Ok, she's not the star of the team, and still remains extremely unlikely to follow fellow Sabra Doron Shefer into the NBA draft, but its still something and I wanted to end on a bright note.

Land of a Thousand Dances

2006-03-26T04:45:00.000+07:00

Choose the letter that best describes the picture:

A) Baseball hires wrestling commissioner to spruce up national pastime.
B) Why slide into home when you can dive onto it?
C) The Red Sox new gimmick: players circle bases on their hands after hitting home run.
D) Twisting body into that old Indian symbol commandeered by the Nazis is harder than it looks.

Paradise? How?

2006-01-22T23:18:00.000+07:00

I saw the Palestinian suicide bomber film Paradise Now a few weeks ago and I've been wanting to write about it ever since.

First I thought I'd take a few days to let the film sink in. It's not an easy film to get a handle on, particularly if you live where I live and think about the things I think about. There may be people out there who can view this type of film primarily on the art/film/drama level, but I'm not one of them.

Then the film wins a Golden Globe award and I start reading about it everywhere.
Especially here.
Then this happens, and I start thinking I may be better off finding something else to write about, like maybe Spielberg's new film.

But it hasn't opened in Israel, as far as I know, so I'm back where I started.

The film begins at an Israeli checkpoint and ends on a bus in Tel Aviv. In between, two guys from Nablus are recruited by an unnamed Islamic terror group to carry out a suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. The film shows how the terrorists prepare the two bombers for their "mission" - everything from their baths, haircuts and last suppers to posing for their "shahid" posters and recording video taped messages for their families.

There is no doubt that the film "humanizes" the bombers. There are scenes in the second half of the film that would make anyone feel for one of the bombers. The terrorists who sent him seem to have abandoned him with a bomb still strapped to his chest and a warning not to try to remove it. The bombers seem like nice guys, the kind that would help you move or lend you their car in a pinch. They also believe the Palestinians have tried every peaceful means of improving their situation, and since nothing worked, suicide terror is legitimate.

There is one strong character who is opposed to terror. But she grew up in the West, enjoys foreign films, and her father was a big terror hero who died in a blaze of glory. Her argument is that the bombings are ineffective for the Palestinians. She doesn't seem to realize they are also morally repugnant. No one in the film expresses an ounce of empathy for any Israeli. In fact, that's the problem with the film. It humanizes terrorists and dehumanizes their victims. Maybe one is necessary for the other.

__________________________

Three weeks after seeing the film, one scene continues to intrigue me. It's a small scene and I'm curious about the director's motivation for including it. The scene takes place in a cab. One of the bombers (before he sets out on his mission, and possibily before he was even recruited) needs a ride from one side of Nablus to the other. During the ride, the cab driver tells him - with no irony whatsoever - that Israelis are poisoning the water supply in the West Bank to lower Palestinian sperm counts. But since he's such a strong man, the driver says, the poison hasn't affected him. He has five children.

This scene has so many dimensions, I feel like it's a key to the entire film. On the one hand, the driver has no doubts that Israel is poisoning his water in order to lower his sperm count, ostensibly to bring down the Palestinian birth rate. On the other hand, he has five children. If people really believe Israel is capable, technologically and morally, of carrying out such a plot, is it surprising they would have trouble empathizing with the Israeli victims of terror?

I don't think the director included this scene to accuse Israel of poisoning the water. I think he was criticizing the Palestinian mind set that allows them to maintain victim fantasies that reach such a level. He's painting a portrait of life in Nablus, and it includes people who spread these stories and other people who believe them.

Interestingly, the driver doesn't see the fact that he has five children as evidence that the story may be false. In the driver's mind, the story is obviously true, but he, with his superior strength, managed to overcome Israel's plot.

And that, ultimately, is the main theme of the film. To the Palestinians in Paradise Now (if not necessarily the real Palestinians), pride trumps truth. And that leads them to make horrible horrible decisions.

Bibi Joins Harlem Globetrotters

2005-12-20T20:51:00.000+07:00

Binyamin Netanyahu quits politics to launch career in professional basketball. Here he demonstrates his skills by spinning David Levy's head on one finger.

Doin' Their Thing, Part 2

2005-12-19T22:10:00.000+07:00

Iran Accepts Jewish State in Europe

2005-12-09T19:10:00.000+07:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to have softened his hardline opposition to Israel. Three weeks ago he said Israel should be wiped off the map entirely. But now, Iran is willing to accept Israel's existance - as soon as the Jewish state moves to Europe.

Well, at least Europe is on the map.

But why Europe? Why not someplace nice and sunny, like the Bahamas or northern California? Because Ahmadinejad claims the Holocaust never happened, but since Europe thinks it did, it must therefore take responsibily and make space for the world's Jews.

"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail," Ahmadinejad said.

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, we ask the Europeans: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it," he added.

Muslims who deny the Holocaust better be careful or pretty soon they're going to start meeting Jews who deny the occupation. If Israeli soldiers really maintained control of the Gaza Strip, what army pushed them out? Are we really to believe the brutal occupiers got up and left one day on their own accord? And if there are no soldiers in Gaza now, lets not start rewriting history with the claim that they were there before. Maybe some of them crossed the border once in a while, but it was only to protect innocent Palestinians from the armed militias, who kill indiscriminately.

Lets face it, the whole "occupation" theory of Israelis in the Gaza Strip is just another version of the whole, "Jews control the world" cannard. And that theory was discredited long ago.

Of course, anyone making this claim has about as much integrity as Holocaust deniers, like the president of Iran. But I have to admit, there is a real power in denial. Even though "occupation denial" was meant as a joke, even as I wrote the words, I could feel something happening inside. The act of denial is a potent substitute for responsibility. How much easier it is to deny something than to own it and and make amends. There is even something cleansing in that. If we can really convince ourselves that something terrible never happened, the stain on our psyches seems to vanish almost instantly.

Where's My Hat?!?

2005-12-04T23:31:00.000+07:00

Former Meretz Chairman Yossi Sarid modeling the newest "ultra-secular" fashions.

The New Political Landscape

2005-11-24T05:11:00.000+07:00

We vote a lot around here. The last time was the fourth time in seven years ('96, '99, '01, and '03). It seems so long ago now. At the end of 2004, we'd gone a full calendar year without voting or dissolving the government.

But even so, I'm actually - well, not inspired, exactly. More like... interested. The whole political landscape changed in an the blink of an eye, and everything seems new again.

We're finally out of the Netanyahu-Barak era and way past the Peres era. (What would happen if Peres ran for office unopposed? Would he still have to lose?) Netanyahu could hang with the Likud, but I'd doubt it. I think we'll see a spirited race for the Likud leadership. They don't know if they should go right left or center.

Of course, Sharon is probably the best politician I've ever seen. He's completely squeezed the Likud out of the running. Unless the Likud finds a proper response, they're going to lose votes to Sharon and the right wing parties. They are going to be left with nothing. I wonder if the two party system is in trouble.

I also wonder if anyone remembers that Amir Peretz won just three seats in the last election. And he's trying to impose the same policies on the Labor party. I don't really understand why there is so much excitement about him. Personally, I don't think it/s him at all. I think they're happy to have anyone who didn't help get the party into its current position.

My fearless prediction: No Histadrut strikes until after the election.

Aliyat Haregel 2005

2005-10-20T16:09:00.000+07:00

Weird Scenes in the Old City, Part 1

2005-09-21T14:27:00.000+07:00

New Arab View of Israel

2005-09-09T18:19:00.000+07:00

The always-lucid Ehud Ya'ari writes that Arab views toward Israel are shifting in the post-disengagement era. Instead of pushing for a massive attack on the Jewish state, some Arab thinkers are now predicting the state is nearing collapse on its own.

A new thesis is spreading through the Arab world, according to which Israel is approaching old age and is battling a long, drawn-out terminal illness. Even if the Jewish state is still healthy enough to be able to suppress the symptoms, the theory goes, there will be no recovery. From being a dynamic society suffused with the ideals of Zionist revival and with the wind of history in its sails, the Israelis have turned into a torn nation, lost, confused and lacking spirit.

Read the whole story.

When Israelis Are Wet Rags

2005-09-02T14:53:00.000+07:00

Sometime during my college years in Boston, when the Oslo Accords were still new and there was no irony in referring to the Palestinians as peace partners, I went to hear an Israeli and a Palestinian debate the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

I expected a lively discussion, with both sides hurling accusations at one another. I expected it to get heated, maybe one or the other losing his tempter, perhaps even throwing something. But that didn't happen at all. Debate wasn't really the right word to describe it. Today, I would call it a lecture. Both sides took turns explaining why Israel was wrong about everything. No one defended Israel, and no one mentioned any Palestinian or Arab role in the conflict.

It was my first exposure to Israeli post-Zionism.

I'm reminded of this "debate" because I encountered a similar situation in the Frontline/World special on the Middle East called Occupied Minds: A Palestinian and Israeli on the Road, which debuted on Aug. 30. Two journalists, an Israeli and a Palestinian, go to Jerusalem to learn about each other's people. Unfortunately, the Israeli, David Michaelis, believes the Palestinians are currently experiencing a second "nakba," and the Palestinian, Jamal Dajani, who narrates the work, believes in a one-state solution. Both seem like nice, intelligent people, but neither one apprears too anxious to examine both sides equally.

What's frustrating about the work is that the Israeli fails to stand up for Israel on virtually any issue. He seems vaguely convinced that the two-state solution is better, but only because it seems more practical. He refuses to challenge any of the Palestinians he interviews. And he makes some of the program’s strongest indictments against Israel. What's the point of having "an Israeli and a Palestinian" if they both hold Palestinian views? In this case, the Israeli simply serves as a figleaf for the Palestinian message.

As a result, we get something that appears balanced on the surface but fails to shed real light on the complex Middle East reality. When the two go to visit an Israeli victim of terror, who lost an eye in a suicide bombing, the Palestinian interviewer challenges him to defend an IDF bombing that killed Palestinian civilians. But when they visit an Arab Israeli, that aggressiveness is gone, replaced by nods of empathic understanding. No one brings up the question of Palestinian terror, and neither reporter challenges the Arab Israeli at all, even when he makes ridiculous accusations, such as his claim that Russian immigrants to Israel are taking Palestinian land.

About halfway through the documentary, the two journalists split up, with the Dajani headed to (pre-disengagement) Gaza to talk to frustrated people at a checkpoint, and Michaelis attending a right wing rally in Jerusalem. where he clearly feels uncomfortable and doesn't talk to anyone. He also goes to Emek Refaim St., where he notes the increase in security since his last visit and remarks that Jerusalem has become the world's capital for suicide bombings.

When they meet up again, the Palestinian admits it was good they didn't go to Gaza together, or the Palestinians would have lynched the Israeli. Later in the program, however, they agree that peace will come when the Israelis, not the Palestinians, learn to be good neighbors.

The program concludes with a tour of "the wall itself," Israel's security barrier in Jerusalem. We see old Palestinian women struggling to cross the wall and cursing Israel. We also meet a Palestinian farmer who is unable to reach a portion of his land because of the barrier and an Israeli city planner who hints that the wall is really a political structure. The Israeli journalist concludes that the wall causes Palestinains to hate Israel more deeply.

At the end, Michaelis and the Dajani sit on a park bench discussing what they'd seen. The Israeli talks about how he sees little to be hopeful about, but one never knows where a solution can come from. "The wall in Berlin came down, South Africa has been turned upside down, unimagined things can happen," he says.

"We have a saying about driving in Israel: don't be right, be clever," he adds, explaining that Israelis have to consider pragmatic solutions. The Palestinian responds that it is up to Israel to find the solution because Israel has more power in the region.

The finished product clearly gives a pass to the Palestinians on many difficult questions. When an Arab Israeli dentist says many of his clients haven't been able to pay their bills since the intifada began, it is taken as a fact of life, not something the Palestinians have control over, as though they didn't start the intifada, and they aren't continuing it.

The reporters show that Palestinian lives have been effected by Israel's security measures, but never discuss the fact that the Palestinians destroyed a peaceful political process by launching a campaign of terror. We see the Israeli right wing at a rally with its slogans and banners, but not Palestinian terror rallies. We hear about suicide bombings, but we never get a feel for where the bombers come from and what role they play in Israel’s security measures.

We also get a strong sense of Palestinian suffering, but all of it seems to be at the hands of Israel. The reality, of course, is far more complex. There are Palestinian armed groups causing chaos in the territories, and massive corruption in the Palestinian government. During the height of the intifada, there were reports of Palestinians hording international aid and selling it to hungry people.

It would also be nice to hear Palestinian perspectives on what the Palestinians should do to contribute to peace in the region. But if the public had any sense of Palestinians other than victims, it could undermine support for the Palestinian struggle. Clearly, the two reporters of the Frontline documentary were not taking any chances on that happening.

The Obvious Choice

2005-08-18T23:50:00.000+07:00

As I perused the usual assortments of websites and blogs this morning, I hit upon something interesting on my friend Dan's site, Orthodox Anarchist (http://www.orthodoxanarchist.com/) .

One of the commentators was actually accusing Dan of not being a real anarchist, which was striking in itself, but among the reasons he gave, the commentator wrote, "I'd like to say that if Mobius (Dan) truly was an anarchist he'd have made the obvious choice of going to live on the other side of the wall." The guy was referring to that structure I like to call the Arafat Wall. And living on the other side, of course, means living with the Palestinians.

The part that got me was how the commentator thought it was an "obvious choice" for any radical to side with the Palestinians. Never mind the fact that this level of solidarity with the Palestinians means a tacit acceptance of terror as a political tool. It also means supporting the side that ruined a functioning politicial process by launching a campaign of terror against Israeli civilians. Never mind those facts because it is possible to support Palestinian rights without supporting terror. But to call it an obvious choice...that requires some attention.

To me, it's another glaring example of the groupthink about Israel that has taken hold in the radical movements, the far left, and even sometimes in the mainstream left, especially among the people who consider themselves members of the "human rights" community. Blindly supporting the Palestinians, no matter how much they resort to terror and how little effort they make to improve the lives of their own people, is considered an obvious choice. There is no reason to think about this issue any further, to consider the possibility that the Palestinians may bear a measure of responsibility for their current plight. No, the obvious choice is to move to the other side of the Arafat Wall and to stay there.

The issue of groupthink is particularly relevent to me because I'm currently reading the book The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki, which happens to address the issue directly. The premise of the book is that the aggregate decisions made by groups of individuals of varying levels of skill, intelligence, and expertise are better than decisions made by individuals, even experts, by themselves. However, for groups to function properly, they must be sufficiently diverse. When groups lack the proper diversity, the threat of groupthink creeping in increases.

"Homogeneous groups become cohesive more easily than diverse groups," Surowiecki explains, "and as they become more cohesive, they also become more dependent on the group, more insulated from outside opinions, and therefore more convinced the group' s judgment on important issues must be right. These kinds of groups share an illusion of invulnerability and a willingness to rationalize away possible counterarguements to the group's position."

He points to experiments involving people being shown cards with lines on them and asking them to indentify which lines were the same lengths. In one such experiment, the experimenter brought six to eight people together, but only one person was the subject. The others were plants that would intentionally give the wrong answer. The question was, would the subject go along with the group and pick the wrong answer, or would he rise above the groupthink and make the right answer on his own. The experiment found that while most people said what they really thought, about 70% changed their minds at least once, and a full third of the people went along with the group. And that's when the answer the group was pushing was objectively wrong.

But the same experiment also revealed how weak a hold groupthink has on its victims. The experimenter tried different variations on the experiment, including one in which one of the plants would actually say the right answer. In those trials, when the subject had an ally expressing the right answer, the numbers showed significant improvement in how many subjects said what they really thought was right.

That's why Israel advocacy must make every effort to reach people in those groups where anti-Israel groupthink is at its strongest. Because when people encounter diverse ideas, they become less dependent on their groups's ideas and become less willing to rationalize away the possible counterarguments.

One thing is certain: there are people in radical movements who believe that unquestioned support for the Palestinians is an obvious choice. The job of Israel's advocates is to make that choice less obvious. If people really consider the situation and conclude that they should support the Palestinians, that's one thing. But it should not be an obvious choice, reached without any thinking whatsoever.

It's the Extremes that Kill Me

2005-08-17T01:04:00.000+07:00

I can't support this:

Or this:

Doing Their Thing

2005-08-08T19:59:00.000+07:00

Do You Want To Know a Secret?

2005-08-03T14:06:00.000+07:00

"Some secrets we hide from others, and some we hide from ourselves."

Check out http://postsecret.blogspot.com/.

This is probably the greatest thing I've seen on the web so far.

It's a blog composed of postcards people sent in anonymously revealing a secret. Each one is a profound work of art.

Book Review: One People, Two Worlds

2005-07-29T21:03:00.000+07:00

Orthodox and Reform rabbis engage in serious dialogue about as often as the Red Sea splits or the Red Sox win the World Series. Orthodox leaders generally forbid rabbis from participating in interdenominational forums, fearing that sharing a platform with a Reform rabbi would legitimize the Reform position. As a result, most direct communication between the two groups is limited to the occasional condemnation or accusation. The two groups may believe they belong to one people, but they clearly live in two separate worlds.

That's why the aptly named One People, Two Worlds is so refreshing. The book consists of an email dialogue between Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Reinman and Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch over a period of nearly two years. In long, deliberate posts, the rabbis debate the most contentious issues that divide their worlds, including the origin of Torah, halacha vs. personal autonomy, Zionism, the role of women in Jewish life, and the role of Jews in the world. Both are talented writers who believe passionately in their ideology. They maintain a friendly tone throughout, but an underlying tension remains tangible.

Both rabbis spend most of the book laying out the standard arguments for their positions. But as the book progresses they also develop a fascinating dynamic. Both writers admit they are trying to reach the same audience - non-Orthodox readers - but for entirely different reasons. Reinman want to teach them the "classic" Torah position and maybe bring a few readers into his camp. Hirsch just wants Reform readers to see that he can debate his Orthodox colleague as an equal.

To advance his personal agenda, Hirsch tries to bridge the gap between him and Reinman as much as possible, ostensibly to show how open and accepting the Reform worldview is, but also to show how much common ground there is between Reform and Orthodox ideology. He also makes extensive use of Talmudic passages and quotes from the classic Torah commentators. His goal, of course, is to show that Reform did not spring to life fully formed in the liberal tradition of the Enlightenment. In Hirsch's hands, Reform Jews, not the Orthodox, are the true heirs of the Talmudic tradition, at least in spirit. If they don't always follow the letter of the law as expressed by the Talmudic sages, it's because times have changed. And, as Hirsch demonstrates, no one was more concerned with the need for change than Chazal.

In contrast, Reinman wants to show how far Reform has drifted from the sources and how shakey his colleague's knowledge of Torah really is. He completely rejects every single Torah reference Hirsch makes as either "distorted," "misinterpreted," or "wrong." The two have a lengthy debate on the meaning of a single, ultra-ambiguous line from Ibn Ezra. Reinman is appalled that Hirsch tries to suggest Ibn Ezra supported a Reform methodology. Other quotes are treated in the same manner - Reinman complements Hirsch on his erudition in finding the references, then tells him what they "really" mean. His message is clear: Reform rabbis have no authority to interpret the verses because they don't accept their traditional meaning. If one lacks an insight into what the tradition is teaching us, Reinman seems to be saying, how can that person know when the tradition needs to change?

Another theme running through the book is the question of absolute certainty. Hirsch tries to show that people can never be absolutely certain about spiritual matters, that there is a difference between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge. When Reinman suggests that Jewish life revolves around the search for absolute truth, Hirsch answers that the Orthodox are not searching for truth, but rather claim to own it. And people who believe they own the truth are dangerous, he says.

Reinman responds that Orthodox Jews are searching for the truth and claim to own it in the form of the Torah. "Absolute truth is certainly revealed in the divine Torah, but we cannot simply open to to, let's say, page 134 to check it out," Reinman writes. "We have to study and think over and over again until we can discern the transcendent truth of existance within the pages of the Torah."

By the end of the book, both writers made strong cases for their positions. Personally, I found Hirsch more interesting because the Reform views were new to me. But I found Rienman more convincing, perhaps because I agreed with him from the beginning. Reinman also seemed to write considerably more pages. His posts tended to be longer than Hirsch's and he wrote more of them.

The rabbis stated at the start they did not expect to overcome the gaps between them, and they were right. The differences in their views remain acute. But I, for one, am grateful they made the effort. They remain one people, even if they live in different worlds, a condition infinitely preferable to its alternative: two people living in one world.

How to Bring Moshiach

2005-07-17T16:18:00.000+07:00

One Went Nuts

2005-07-14T01:11:00.000+07:00

There is a famous story of four sages that went to Pardes (the Four Worlds of Kabbalah) in search of ultimate truth (Hagigah 14B).

Ben Azzai gazed at the ultimate truth and died.
Ben Zoma gazed and went crazy.
Acher (one who shan't be named) gazed and became a heretic.
Only Rabbi Akiva went up in peace and returned in peace.

Of the four, I find Ben Zoma the most interesting. He is credited with one of my favorite Mishnas in Pirke Avot: Who is the rich man? One who is happy with his lot. He is also mentioned in the Pesach Hagaddah for explaining why the Exodus from Egypt must be mentioned on the night of the seder. The verse says, "That you may remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life. " Ben Zoma explained that the "days of your life" refers to daytime. The extra word "all" refers to the nights as well.

In those two places, he teaches us to focus on what we have, not what we lack, and to look beyond what we see in front of us. These are two lessons I would do well to remember.

A Wall Called Arafat: How to Honor a Real Obstacle

2005-07-08T03:11:00.000+07:00

A group of businessmen in El Salvador, looking to honor the deceased Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, dedicated a park in his memory in San Salvador last month. Turns out, much of the El Salvadoran population, including President Tony Saca, descend from Palestinians who emigrated to the South American state in the late 1800s.

The park runs along a street called Jerusalem, where the businessmen installed a life-size bust of the PLO founder - a reference to their dream of a Palestinian state with a capital in Israel's holy city.

"We are making a monument to the maximum leader of the struggle for the liberation of Palestine," explained John Nasser, one of the businessmen involved in the project.

Nasser may consider Arafat a maximum leader, but then, he lives in El Salvador, not the Palestinian territories. Had he lived in Jenin or Ramallah, odds are he would be like most Palestinians: unemployed, impoverished, and angry with the Palestinian government and its leaders for creating a corrupt and ineffective regime.

Honoring Arafat with a park is like marking last year's tsunami with a pool party. The two things simply don't fit together. Arafat remained a terrorist until his dying breaths. In the end, he was considered incapable of making peace with Israel. In fact, many believe he was the real obstacle.

That's why you don't honor Arafat with a park. You honor him by acknowledging his contribution to the region. No one did more to force Israel to build a security barrier around the West Bank. It was the barrier no one wanted, not the government, the opposition, nor the people. But after three years of non-stop terror it became clear that Arafat had no intention of stopping the violence. After much debate, the government ordered a barrier between Israel and the Palestinians.

That wall is Arafat's real legacy, and it should bear his name as a sign of honor. It captures everything he gave his people, the sum total of forty years as their leader.

There is the Allenby Bridge, the Begin Highway, and now, the Arafat Wall. May this legacy endure for generations.

Free Hugs in Kikar Zion

2005-07-05T02:15:00.000+07:00

The Hangover

2005-07-04T20:50:00.000+07:00

I admit it. I love seeing the flags come out in Spring as Israel prepares to celebrate Independence Day. And I love it when those flags are still waving on Jerusalem Day three weeks later.

The flags - crisp, clean, shiny and new - remind me how much people struggled to build the state and how much they accomplished. The flags express a feeling of pride, and fill me with awe when I see so many on display all across the country.

But as we enter Summer, some of those flags are still hanging on the rooftops and doorways, and they aren't so crisp and clean. Some have twisted up into knots around gates or wires. Others have started to fray at the edges.

They don't express a feeling of pride anymore. They look neglected, like no one cares about them and maybe never did. Do people really care about something they can't be bothered to look after?

But maybe the opposite is true. Maybe people simply can't bring themselves to take them down. The flags become a part of them, and the fraying edges only add to their uniqueness. Like our favorite pair of jeans, we keep wearing them until we wear them out.

Fries with That?

2005-07-03T04:27:00.000+07:00