Human rights hypocrites

Israel is being denounced by the whole world for stopping a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip. The fact that the flotilla was organized by a known terrorist organization makes no difference to the enlightened world. The fact that human rights and peace activists were using knives, machetes, metal poles, broken glass bottles to attack soldiers fails to strike people as odd, perhaps puzzling - pacifists are known to be pro-violence, are they not? The fact that convoys upon convoys of food and medical supplies are being delivered to Gaza daily, again, is not part of the comfortable narrative, so let's just forget it.


The question is why this whole scam is being done? What is the motive? The motive is, in the end, to cast doubt over the legitimacy of Israel. It is a well orchestrated attack on Israel, with major organizations taking part in it. For example, the BBC with its one-sided depiction of the news, the United Nations, whose human rights section found only one nation guilty of human rights infractions, etc. It is not new, either. When Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981 the whole world condemned it, only to thank the Israelis 10 years later when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the international community came to rescue the oil fields there.

So, in order to let some human rights activists on some of the most known secrets in the world I decided to compile a short list of human rights infractions that Israel is *gasping* not involved in, yet they are still happening in our beautiful world:

• There is this small issue of a so-called genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Not sure if it is worth mentioning.
• I heard some rumors that protesters in Iran were killed and tortured by the regime, but I find it very hard to believe knowing how humanitarian they are.
• Workers in factories in China might be driven to work to death, to the point of slavery, but who wants to hear about the way his iPod/iPad was manufactured? And, besides, who lets them speak up about it?
• I can't believe it's true, but I heard claims that Turkey was involved in a genocide of their own. Naaah, can't believe them, such a nice people the Turks. Probably a Zionist propaganda this thing.
• There is a nice little island just to the west of England. For some reason, it seems that some of the settlers there are not originally Irish and the northern part is interestingly enough under British rule. I wonder when the English will remove all the settlements from Northern Ireland as Israel withdrew from Gaza in June 2005 (ah, yes, did you know that Gaza has been under Palestinian rule for the last 5 years?).
• While at it, how are the Basque and the Catalan states doing? I would really love to visit the free Catalan capitol of Barcelona soon.
• I heard the Belgians had some minor misunderstandings of human rights as well. The fact that Congo and this region is still in turmoil a century later can be attributed to the successful Belgium policy there. Hey, but human rights are not violated anymore, right? Everyone lives there peacefully?
  

This list, by the way, can go on and on forever. I just wanted to point out some matters, that in my humble opinion might be more pressing than the Israeli-Gaza conflict. After all, the people in Gaza live, eat food, get electricity, and have fresh water. All of that is due to Israel, which still supplies them with everything they need, even after 5 years of independence.

Independence?

Birthdays and new year days are usually good times to consider one's achievements. Well, it's not my birthday, but it is Israel's 62nd. So, happy birthday Israel, let's see how you're doing.
Lately I complained about the way the Obama Administration meddles with Israeli policy, and puts its democratically elected government at awkward positions, sometimes demanding things that contradict the very ticket they had used to get elected. At this point I would like to tackle the other side and answer the following questions: why does the administration think it's a legitimate move, and how can Israel escape this dire situation.
Israel has relied on one superpower or another during all its existence. Starting with France, that supported Israel in its first 20 years of existence, including providing it with weapons, and following the French embargo in 1967, the Americans. There is no doubt that the Americans get their reward out of it, otherwise why would they bother? The question is: should Israel continue with it and at what price?
From the economic point of view, the American aid is currently $2.5B, mostly for defense expenditures. Undoubtedly, this helps Israel buy advanced American aircrafts and equipment, but not the most advanced, e.g. the F-22 Raptor was not sold to Israel. But, more importantly, more than 2/3 of the money is required, by the treaty between the countries, to be spent on military equipment. So, basically, this is money that helps the federal government in generating jobs for the American people. It also allows the US to control what Israel buys, not only in military contexts, but also, for example, which airliners will El-Al use. At least on one occasion, El-Al had to cancel a better deal with Airbus and buy from Boeing under heavy American pressure. And finally, and most disturbingly, it allows the US to pressure and in many case cancel weapons sales from Israel to India and China. Independence? Hardly.
Let's assume that Israel refuses to take any more American aid. Sure, it will have to cover this gap in its national budget. Let's see if it is possible. The Israeli budget is about $80B, so $2.5B are about 3% of this budget. However, since at least $2B out of the $2.5B are not spent domestically, Israel can just buy aircrafts at a lower rate, or simply not buy them at all. In the last F-16 deal with the US Israel bought 102 F-16s worth $70M each. That's about $7B. Assuming it was paid for in a decade, the cost per year is $700M, which could be saved entirely, or reduced to a more manageable value. In short, at least $0.5B-$1B a year can be saved by cutting down on military expenditures.
Another part is spending the money domestically. Israeli defense forces started buying fatigues, uniforms, and other equipment from American sources because it was "cheaper" as it came from the American aid and not in Israeli shekels. But this came with a price: many textile and low-tech industries, which relied on these purchases, had to close down, because they could not compete for contracts that excluded them from participating in them. If you take all the unemployment money paid to former employees of these industries and instead of spending it on unemployment, the same money can be spent to buy necessary equipment from these factories. Doing so would boost the entire economy and will actually reduce government spending. I don't have the figures, but I would guess that at least $0.2B are spent each year on these types of equipment. If spent domestically, the workers hired to meet this demand will also buy more, pay taxes, and in general contribute to the Israeli economy and budget, so the benefit can be even higher.
Now, assuming the $1B-$1.5B can be saved or "won back" without the American aid, it seems that the other $1-$1.5B (1.5%-2% of the budget) can be saved as well, either by cutting on defense budget or simply by making better deals, which will be easier if Israeli is no longer restricted to buying just from American companies. As a last resort: raise taxes or increase the deficit.
It seems that the price Israel and its democracy pay for the American aid is too great. If the US wants to turn Israel into a state in the union, let it be clearly stated so, let the Israelis and Americans vote on it, and I am quite sure it will cost more than $2.5B a year (Israel's population is about 7.5 million, which ranks it 12-13 between Washington and Virginia. I doubt if they get less money from the federal budget spent in their area). If, on the other hand, Israel wants to retain (or gain, depending on who you ask) its independence, it should free itself from the American aid money.

On Politics and Friendships

The Israeli, and partly also the American, media are discussing lately the issue of the Obama administration's reaction to the Israeli government's decision to build 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times had some spare thoughts to share, which the Wall Street Journal repudiated. In light of this discussion, I will share my 2 cents. I know I am not exactly a publicist or a renowned blogger, but still there is one thing that bothers me about the way the administration is pressing the Israeli government. But before that, a word of warning: I am what Israelis might call "left-wing"; I fully support the right of the Palestinians to have a state alongside Israel, I support the so called "Two States Solution", I supported the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and I object to building in the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Now that this is out of our way, let's take a deep breath and see how the Obama administration, with senior Jewish officials (Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod), is acting in their worst interests, instead of the required, assuming that the administration indeed wants to get the peace process working.

It is often said that special relations between Israel and the USA are founded on the premises of joint values, democracy being one of such main values. Israel is, in fact, the only openly democratic republic in the Middle East. It is so democratic, in fact, that in the last fifteen (15) years since 1996 there were six (6) elections. This democratic instability is caused by many factors, which are not the scope of this post. However, the main things to mention are that Israel is a democracy, an unpredicted one at that, and that the fragmented political map in Israel makes it impossible for a government to complete its four years' term. One may ask, what does it have to do with the Obama administration? Well, in short, everything. Since the Obama administration wants democracy to proliferate in the world, it should also show some respect to its, occasionally, undesired side effects, namely that an undesired political side gets into power. Undoubtedly, having a right-wing Israeli government, in which Avigdor Lieberman is Foreign Minister, is hardly a desired partner in American eyes. Nonetheless, it is still the elected government. The last campaign was unique in the way that one side, the Israeli right in this case, decidedly won the elections. And, being the right wing that they are, the ticket that got them there was expanding the settlement in Judea and Samaria, which, according to their voters, is, has been, and shall always be, part of the Jewish Holy Land. I might argue with that, but as the side that lost the elections, I respect their views and hope for the best in the next elections.

In my view, this is where the Obama officials show their infuriating combination of hypocrisy and inexperience. Hypocrisy because they do not accept the vote of the Israeli people, and force Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept their terms, which are contradictory to the ticket he was elected with. Not only that, by doing so the administration is deliberately trying to undermine Prime Minister Netanyahu's government by alienating his coalition partners. The inexperience part comes from the lack of understanding in Israeli politics. If they knew better, the administration would know that what they are doing will cause the Israeli public, including left wing people like myself, to rally in support of their government. I may not like the government's decisions, but I am definitely against foreign countries' meddling in our decision making.

And, yes, it is, in lack of better term, meddling with Israeli internal affairs. This is hardly the first time American administration did it to Israel, or to other countries. However, this time the administration has crossed the line between mild meddling and acting forcibly to destabilize the elected Israeli government. To make it clearer to American eyes, this would be parallel to a foreign superpower (China perhaps) forcing the administration to stop its healthcare reform, claiming it to be too expensive (China is after all America's largest creditor) by destabilizing Obama's administration using international and internal pressure on decision makers. I am certain that if this was the case, the Obama administration would not accept it silently, and certainly would not apologize for not doing so, as Netanyahu did. If anything, the administration reaction would be to denounce this act of meddling in American internal affairs and the American people would not accept it either. So, it is of great wonder to me that the administration expects the Israeli government and people to accept this breach of Israeli sovereignty.

Brain drain

So, I get an email this morning from someone claiming that they represent the Israeli ministry of science and are looking to generate a list of Israeli "brains" that are currently living abroad. Great. First thought - it's probably phishing.
Second thought - other people got it as well, so may be it's not.
Third thought - I clicked the link, a genuinely looking site comes up. Great.

I clicked the "המשך" (next) button that will allow me to view/update my details, and - surprise! It doesn't work.

What's the f***?
Didn't they hear of checking their website? How do they expect Israeli scientists to return to such a "partachi" state?

The siege syndrome

Israelis like to say that they are under siege. I don't know if it stems out of the Holocaust, the first decades of Israel's existence, or maybe from millennia of antisemitism in Europe, but it is quite preposterous now. It is not that Israelis, and Jews in general, are liked everywhere nor by any one, but enough with this siege syndrome. So, when I get an email asking me to support Dr. Yoram Blachar, who is up for or has been elected as the Worlds Medical Doctors Association (or something of the like, I don't really follow) against a fierce opposition that claims that he supported Israeli torture of prisoners, or a highlight about an Israeli Facebook group, whose goal is to counter another Facebook group that calls for a boycott over Israel, I am left speechless. This is preposterous. At least theFacebook group could attach a link for the other group that we know it is real.

And even if Facebook decides to boycott Israel - fine, let them. They won't be the first nor the last to do so. I think most Israelis drive cars manufactured by companies that used to boycott Israel until the 1990s, succombing to Arab and Isalamic pressure. Mazda, Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi - all had been boycotting Israel until the peace process with the Palestinians began and the Arab boycott was lifted in the 1990s. Of Japanes car manufacturers, only Subaru were selling cars in Israel in the 1980s or earlier. Mitsubishi were the first to break that boycott in 1989 or 1990 if I remember correctly.

Being paranoid is not a problem, naturally. People might be trying to hurt you. As anything, it is a good thing when taken moderately, until it makes you do stupid things. It seems to me, from afar, that the new Israeli government has been adding to this siege syndrome. I wonder if it is for political survival purposes, gaining internal cohesion before some controversial military act, or something done without a goal. In any case, playing with fire might get you burnt. I hope this will not be the case for us.

Israeli general consul at UC

The Israeli general consul in the US for the Mid-Atlantic states was at UC on Thursday. He gave a nice speech in which he explained the Israeli stand on many issues, mostly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No doubt, he did a good job at that, and was able to answer many questions from the audience, even two provocative questions from a pro-Palestinian student.
However, I was disappointed by the scope of the address. I feel, and expressed these feelings to whomever cared to listen, that a formal Israeli representative should represent Israel - as a whole - not just a poor side of it, namely the conflict. Israel is so much more than a conflict, even though this is what attracts most of the media attention. Israeli representatives should show that Israel is a westernized, relatively liberal, democratic society with many success stories, especially in arts, sciences and technology. This is even more important when the meeting takes place in the College of Arts and Sciences!
There are many reasons why the focus of such meetings should be changed. Firstly, many Americans (and I guess many citizens of other nations as well) don't know Israel other than what the media shows, which is the conflict. That limits their views to only views regarding the conflict, and usually forces them to take sides based on this narrow aspect.
Furthermore, when all you do is talk about the conflict you shed light on both sides of the conflict. Some of this light, perhaps most of it, is spent on your side, naturally, but there is also some light that goes to the other side. Why waste so much energy? Why not show just your country? Just your side?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, when you depict Israel as what it is - and not what the conflict prism causes it to seem - you enable broader perspectives. I think it would be easier for a Westerner to identify with Israeli success stories than it would be for him to identify with Israel's stand on a bloody conflict. People are more bent towards things they can identify in themselves and their culture (modernism, democracy, liberalism) than towards conflicts and wars. Why not provide them with the opportunity to do that?

There are enough success stories to tell. Lately, I have just finished reading on how Americans are coming to realize Israeli success in the Clean-Tech field, which is the new buzz-word now. Why don't you tell us a bit about that, Israeli general consul?

Yom Atzmaut

My favorite holiday has always been Yom HaAtzmaut, independence day. I think that the reasons for this are rooted in my childhood. For one thing, when I was little, my family used to meet with other families of my parents for a Kumsits. As a child, staying up until late, eating barbecue food and being with the "grownups" used to be something I liked. Back then, when the national public television was the only channel, there was no TV on weekends and holidays, and independence day used to be the only day with TV. I used to enjoy the Israeli movies that were aired, though they were "burekas" movies.

The day before independence day is Israeli memorial day. The proximity of the two dates has always puzzled me: how can you be mournful one moment and joyful the next? Israelis are indoctrinated as children that the "fallen" have bestowed upon us our lives in Israel. Their sacrifice is the reason for us being there. I also remember that as a child, with - luckily for me - no known relative who had been killed in service, but with many family members, who had perished in the holocaust, I used to think that the holocaust remembrance day should be more significant than the IDF memorial day. Of course, as a grown up I understand that both are equally important: mourning cannot be measured in quantitative values. There is no "my pain is bigger than yours".

So, why this long introduction? It is my first independence day abroad, and I was wondering how I would feel, whether it will feel like a holiday or not, whether I will feel some mourning on IDF memorial day or holocaust memorial day. It turns out that I do feel and in some absurd way it feels that being abroad makes me feel even more. It is as if being abroad has caused me to feel it from the inside, rather than something that comes from the outside, from the public symbols of these days. Today the movie Beaufort was screened at the University's cinema. I felt that I had to go to the movie, although I saw it some years ago. It is not an easy movie, and seeing it the second time doesn't make it easier to watch. It is as sad as it was the first time, even worse, as one already knows how the plot develops. The screening was organized by the Jewish students organization and "Bearcats for Israel", which is the pro-Israeli organization here. I was expecting people to come, and was surprised to see that I was the only audience when the lights were turned off and the movie began. Afterwards several people came in, one of them I think I even recognized. The strangest thing is that I tried to think how these people interpret the movie.

There are several reasons why non-Israelis will have a problem understanding the movie. Firstly, the movie was screened with Hebrew soundtrack and English subtitles, and so many of the innuendos of Hebrew (and specifically the IDF jargon) just get lost. Secondly, they lack context. When I came out of the movie I saw only 4 other people, all of them looked Indian. There was no introduction to the movie, and I guess that no one leaving outside Israel or Lebanon can even try and understand the situation and all the feelings surrounding it in the year 2000. Furthermore, there are several strong scenes in the movie, in which the leading character - a young officer who is the commander of Beaufort stronghold - is tested. I think that this thing is simply lost to anyone who hasn't had military training, which is obviously anyone who watched the movie today. I couldn't help wondering how they feel when they see it. Some (may be most) of them left at some point or the other, and I wonder if it was because they couldn't understand the movie, or because they had other better things to do. Perhaps I am mistaken, because it seems that most of the comments left by people in IMDB are very positive.

In conclusion, I think that if anything, the fact that I am here causes me to identify even more with the Israeli memorial days/independence day. It's such a shame that I don't have anyone to tell (except D here and the brave readers of this blog).

Weekly thought: is democracy the right policy?

I didn't update about our lives in the previous week, because I was simply too busy to do that. For the same reason, you can also assume that our lives are as boring as can be, and I will not bore you with the minutiae that surround them. The only interesting thing that happened this week were the recurrent Tornado sirens that were sounded all around our area. It appears that whenever there is a thunderstorm in the area these sirens go off, and they sound exactly like air raid sirens. Of course, the alarms were false, and as I understand they usually are. My students and I have concluded that they are another form of the story about the boy who cried "wolf". Instead of a weekly summary you're all invited to share my "weekly thought".

Thus, the only interesting thing about the previous two weeks were the Israeli elections. My views on the success of Israeli democracy have long been known, even before the outcome of this elections, which is again: total stagnation to the point that no one even knows who won. In general, I think that a democracy that generates 5 elections in 10 years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2009) is spinning out of control. Moreover, the rate at which elections are held is increasing, as in the previous two decade only 5 were held (1981, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996). Respectively, the size of the biggest party in the elections is gradually shrinking, from only once below 40 seats (34 in 1996, 44 in 1992, 40 in 1988, 44 in 1984, and 48 in 1981) to only once above 30 seats (28 in 2009, 29 in 2006, 38 in 2003, 2001 elections were for the prime-minister office alone, and 26 in 1999), leaving the Knesset to be ever more divided between factions. Furthermore, the winning side, namely the side that formed the government, has changed in all but one of the last 5 elections (right in 1996, left in 1999, right in 2001 (only PM), right in 2003, center-left in 2006, and right again in 2009) whereas the government was formed by the same side between 1977 and 1999 (with the exception of national unity government led jointly by Likud and Maarach in 1984). In conclusion, the political system in Israel is all but stable, which makes it impossible to generate any kind of movement in any direction, and I don't just relate to Peace vs. War. Think, for example, about the number of national projects done in the first 2-3 decades of the country, and how many national projects have been started and finished since. It's easy: none were started in the last decade or two. I think that the last national project (although controversial one) was the Lavie. In conclusion, I think that the Israeli democratic system has failed, caused us nothing but painful and pricey stagnation, cost us much factionalism and self-hatred, and should be changed. The question is "change to what?" or "do you have another idea?".

Well, I don't. I think that democracy cannot work in any case, but I can neither prove it nor suggest a better way. I can only offer the words of one of my favorite authors, Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote in the book "Glory Road" the following paragraphs. Before them I'll just explain the circumstances: the main character joins an adventure in which he helps the "Empress of the 20 known universes" together with another character, Rufo, who is a comparative-culturolgist: he studies different cultures in the variety of universes. In one of their talks the hero repeats the words of another comparative-culturoligst (Nebbi) who think that the American democracy (which works a bit better than our own) is a "noble experiment", which is bound to fail. This is a quote from Rufo's reply:

"...Nebbi was right. Except that he sees only the surface. Democracy can't work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that's all there is - so Democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.

But a democratic form of government is okay, as long as it doesn't work. Any social organization does well enough if it isn't rigid. The framework doesn't matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing - except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."

I would add that a similar notion of "looseness in government" should be used when thinking about the perfect organizational structure of a company. I guess I would not be alone in that thinking.