Rob Miller aka Joshuapundit has written a post that may appear controversial to many of its readers.
However, the level of desperation with the unending strife and unending hate from our Gazan neighbors lead Israelis increasingly thinking about this way of solving the problem. Not yet there, but thinking of it.
***
Since March 30th, much of the world's press and a chunk of the so-called 'international community' has been focusing on a series of what can only be called violent riots emanating from Gaza against Israel's border.
This post is mostly a copy/paste of a response to a long article about the apparent nostalgia for the old times that is titled “Hitler’s Children”, written quite a long time ago by one William Grin. But first of all a short preface. The response is written by my penfriend Benjamin Goldstein, a German Jew who is immensely qualified to analyze and criticize the Germany-related content, especially of such a disturbing manner.
The article he is dissecting was sent to me by a friend and, after reading it, I had some doubts about its veracity and a possibility of exaggeration. I have spent only a limited time in Germany by myself, met a limited number of Germans and, being a strict follower of the famous "Don't mention the war" doctrine, have seen mostly good in the people I have encountered. But here comes a man...
The story of the connection between the two started for me with this disturbing NYT quote:
Not knowing who professor Henry J. Cadbury was, I have started googling, and one of the first links happened to be an archive page of JTA, from the year 1934, referenced in the quote above.
Lo and behold: the quote above was sounded not in some judenrein "safe space", but at annual convention of the Central Conference of American Reform Rabbis.
A plea that the Jewish people “display good will instead of hatred” toward the Nazis who are provoked to committing violence by an attitude of antagonism, was voiced by Professor Henry J. Cadbury, of Bryn Mawr, chairman of the American Friends Service Committee, in an address at the opening session of the forty-fifth annual convention of the Central Conference of American Reform Rabbis held here at the South Mountain Manor Summer Resort. More than 150 rabbis from all parts of the United States and Canada attended.
This post isn't easy for me to write. Not because I don't know what it should say, just because I don't have a solution to the problem raised by Terry Glavin in the article A moral dilemma on the Israel-Gaza border. It is much easier to respond to a relentless propaganda attack by your enemies than to a true concern about you, expressed by your true friend.
I have had a curious Facebook encounter recently that caused me to do some searching for an explanation. On an FB page that is dedicated to left wing Zionists' aspirations, I have got involved in a discussion of an ancient expression "אור לגויים" or, in a not totally precise, but widely accepted translation, "Light to the Nations". The expression itself, as could be easily (but only partially) seen from the links above, is quite a complex one and given to wide, and sometimes wild, interpretations.
The person who raised the issue, one Matt Adler (מטע אדלר) insisted that the current use of this expression in Israel is to stress the perceived superiority of people of Israel (or, rather, Israelis, which is not one and the same) over goyim. And that he hears it used all the time by these stuck up obnoxious Israelis.
I was quite surprised by that strong observation. In my experience almost all people who use that term, do it with a healthy dose of irony (or sarcasm, depending on the context) and in most cases it is self-deprecatory, as Jewish habits go. Which was the point I made. The response was quite surprising: in a minute or so I got blocked by Matt. That without any personal remarks or attacks, in the midst of a polite exchange of opinions.
It isn't that I am oversensitive. After many years of keyboard wars, one tends to grow a thick enough skin. It is just that, after finding Matt's blog, Planting Roots Bearing Fruits and reading a few posts there, I feel quite concerned about the author. Concerned because he seems to be good people and because we (the state of Israel) seem to be losing him. So, exactly as I am concerned about hundreds of thousands of other young people we have lost during these 70 years, I am worried about Matt.
Matt describes himself as "An open-minded* multilingual Jewish explorer". From his other remarks, it appears that he moved to Israel in July 2017 (less than an year here), that he is gay, belongs to the Reform community and strives "to learn and grow here in Israel".
And here is Matt's opinion, quite a firm one, crystallized in half an year of his presence here:
Israel is pretty awful when it comes to human rights, to respecting diversity, to preserving Jewish culture, to living up to Jewish values, to treating people with respect, and to pursuing peace both within society and with our neighbors.
Oh, and another one I almost missed:
Israel is a super stressful place to live...
So much so, that Matt's deep dissatisfaction with his findings ends in:
I’ve been pretty fed up with God lately, tired of Zionism, and not even really sure if I feel Jewish anymore. So I decided to see if maybe Diaspora Judaism, the Judaism I grew up with, still fit.
I am not sure what the deity or, for that matter, Zionism (rather a concept to tickle the Diaspora Jews - we don't deal much with Zionism here, we just live in the land) and the technicality of being Jewish - what measure of bitterness each of the three contributes to Matt's tiredness? but anyhow it's a rather troubling picture.
So what, would you ask, is the ideal situation Matt looks forwards too? Probably in this passage Matt gives a partial answer:
Much like Israel, Judaism needs a revamp. No need to throw everything out, but the way it’s going isn’t working- at least not for me. As I watched two Israelis living in Barcelona learn the Reform liturgy Friday night- and engage in gentler, more peaceful ways than I usually see in Israel- I see a bit of light. Jews outside of Israel need Israel. Yes, it’s a deeply f*cked place and I would rather the world not have states at all. And I’ll keep fighting for that.
Yes, a stateless open world, a gentle and peaceful globe, where the lamb will lie down with the lion. Wouldn't we all love that? I dare say only a hardened asocial psychopaths will willingly offer an objection to that proposal.
I don't think that I could parse all of Matt's complaints in the limited format of a blog post. But one thing should be said about many of them - and his blog in general is full of unhappy observations. "A little learning is a dangerous thing". And some of Matt's (quite firm) opinions and conclusions are indeed a result of little learning. Things that he picked up rather as a result of a confirmation bias than a well-rounded observation and research.
For example - human rights, in this case as related to Matt's view of the refugees issue. To start with, I am generally with Matt on the subject of forceful expulsion. Only generally, because there still is a need to resolve the question of who exactly is a refugee (asylum seeker) vs who is a work seeking migrant. But first and foremost, there is an issue of integration of refugees here. A grave mistake, made by our government, as it was made by practically all European governments, was in letting the refugees to gravitate to the same two gathering spots - one, smaller, in Eilat and the second in the poor neighborhoods of Tel Aviv. This "I wash my hands" policy, practiced by many governments, under the guise of so called "multiculturalism", was a total failure. Multiculturalism was clearly an euphemism for doing practically nothing and investing no effort in real integration of newcomers in the society. The problems created by this approach (or, rather, lack thereof) in south of Tel Aviv, with resulting bitterness of local population and eruption of what Matt considers to be racist affectations. It is easier to blame the government for trying to resolve the problem, as government clerks know to, by forcing the refugees out. As it is easier to blame the embittered south Tel Aviv Jews for their racism than to look a bit deeper into the issue.
But is it a Israeli-specific fault? I dare say hardly, and many a refugees' ghetto in Europe confirms my point of view. And how does Matt round up the discussion? From here:
The Israeli government, then, is willing to deport these people who it views as economically beneficial. Why? Jewish supremacy and racism.
And, to go for some proof:
It’s telling that the government isn’t stepping up enforcement of the thousands of Romanian or Ukrainian or Filipino workers. Just the really black ones.
This statement is interesting only as a proof of strong confirmation bias that allows a person to ignore a simple detail: that these "Romanian or Ukrainian or Filipino workers" usually come here with working visas, which are quite tightly controlled and only in rare cases these workers break the visa conditions. A bit different from the refugees, I would say. But when you are consumed by a righteous wrath against racist Israel, you can't be really bothered by details like this one, can you, Matt?
Matt is frequently raging. Against what he considers to be a all-consuming Jewish supremacy, the institutional racism, the mutual hate between various groups and subgroups of Israeli citizens. The problem with his observations, as I have mentioned, that they are too shallow, built on skimming the surface to confirm his existing prejudices and beliefs, to strengthen his preoccupation with (what he believes) is the only solution to he world't sickness:
What’s the best solution for the Middle East? Perhaps for the world? The no state solution. For anyone. We need a better way of organizing human life. I don’t- and can’t- have all the answers because it’s something we need to talk about together.
The saving grace is that in his heart of heart Matt does understand the necessity and rightfulness of this little and maddening state. From the post already quoted above, where Matt provides his litany of complaints about the place, quite a different sentiment:
Which brings me to what else Israel does well- it gives me a place where if people are ignorant about my tradition, they can learn on my terms. It gives me a place where I’m in a position of power- as fraught as that is. A place where if people want to expel us or lecture us or deride us, we don’t have to grit our teeth and put up with it.
Yes, Matt, and while we all strive to bring the stateless and borderless world to being, let's not forget what exactly was going on with your stateless tribe during the last, say two thousand years. After all, you seem to understand this point only too well, no matter how hard it is for you to make (temporary) peace with it.
There are a lot of other points wrong with Matt's observations on other issues, big and small (and no, Matt, the Adalah's "Discriminatory Laws Database" is not persuasive, sorry - it could be read in different ways, which Adalah is known to exploit quite well). But I really can't go on for much longer. Just to stress the importance of complete and unbiased observations, a small but oh so typical point. Matt on Tel Aviv Purim festivities - a side observation that is wrong too:
I can’t imagine a small town in Israel- Jewish or otherwise- putting together this level of festivity. It’s amazing.
In small villages, Matt, where people are much closer to each other, the Purim celebrations are, of course, not as grandiose as in Tel Aviv. However, after spending some time with my nearest and dearest in a village in the northern parts of the country, I can say that the week-long Purimspiel, with different costumes every day and lots of different daily activities for the kids puts Tel Aviv in a rather humble shadow... so there.
Oh, and another point. Matt, as long as you talk about the local population as "they" or "Israeli Jews" or any similar variation but not "we" and "us", you are not there yet. Consider it a point to study.
(*) Regarding Matt's open-mindedness: his propensity for blocking people who disagree with him was already noted (I wasn't the only one, by the way, as it appeared). Another testimony offered by Matt himself:
One commenter on my last blog suggested deporting African refugees isn’t racist because Israel “absorbed” Ethiopian Jewish immigrants.
If you follow the link to that last "blog" mentioned, titled There is no racism in Israel, you would search for the above mentioned comment in vain - Matt deleted or otherwise disappeared it. So much for open-mindedness...
Just to dispose of some inattentive readers' attacks: Neo-Luddism is defined quite well.
The above diagram (click to enlarge) includes a lot of known pseudo-sciences, superstitions, conspiracy theories etc. It mentions one of the most dangerous: the anti-vaxxers, the people who one of these days could be the undoing of us all, among many others. One addictive religious cult is missing from the list: the anti-GMO folks.
Not many people these days dare to say something in favor of genetic modification of any living thing, be it a carrot or a human being. The snowball of so called public opinion made any defense of this scientific domain an unhealthy business. Not that the work in this field stopped (I hope it never will), but the level of histrionics in the public discourse on the subject is so high, that it doesn't allow defense to be heard.
To state up front: I don't think that there isn't any potential danger in genetic engineering. Like many other sciences, it should be supervised, checked and rechecked. Thankfully, the institutions to do so are in place. In fact, the paranoid attitude of the above mentioned public made these institutions overbearing, increasing tenfold the time and effort in developing new products. Just as in the big pharma, where it takes about ten years and about half a billion dollars to develop a new drug.
Of course, cases like the Nuedexta or, much worse, Thalidomide, will remain as painful reminders of the need for careful study and implementation of every new compound. But making it a cause for Luddites? And no, these two examples don't have anything to do with GMO products. So far there has been 0 (zero) cases of proven deaths by GMO foods.
The fascinating subject of genetic engineering could be a source for a thousand long posts, but I have to be choosy for the purpose of relative brevity. It will be a long post anyway, so I shall start with:
Bad news for Neo-Luddites.
Dear GMO-haters: when you proudly stick your teeth into a certified non-GMO and (definitely) organic apple, brought to you courtesy of your certified organic non-GMO farmer (and paid for thrice as much as one would pay for a regular supermarket apple of same or better quality, of course), you should be aware of one thing. Your apple is a product of a long, probably hundreds of years long, chain of genetic engineering.
And, for the purpose, I am disregarding the genetic engineering as it was (still is) done by the evolution of the apple trees. I am talking about the selective breeding, performed by uncounted generations of apple growers all over the apple growing world. If any one of you, dear neo-Luddites, thinks for a moment that you are partaking of the virginal proto-apple, as it was created by nature/higher being, perish the thought. You are chomping down on a perfect example of genetically engineered fruit - if not of molecular biology with its frightening tools, then of many years of our forefathers selecting the trees with genes* most suited to produce your perfect "non-GMO" apple. Which apple, while being genetically engineered, will definitely keep the doctor away**.
Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons
[Michael Jackson]
I would dare say that when lies carry a negative charge, they tend not just to run sprints but fly like rockets. The pernicious lies produced by one medical charlatan, Andrew Wakefield, literally kill or maim people for life all over the world, where communities of anti-vaxxers keep popping up and condemn their children (as well as innocent bystanders) to many deadly dangers. Debunked? Yes, he was debunked and punished. Forgotten and not believed anymore? Far from it, the vermin is thriving and the followers of his false religion are quite frisky and multiplying...
Back to genetic engineering. Europe this days presents almost wall-to-wall united front against this branch of science. This in spite of a huge investment on safety studies:
In 2010, the European Commission published a detailed report on fifty research projects carried out between 2001 and 2010 through scientific grants from the European Union. 200 million euros were spent on these studies, they dealt with the impact of GMOs on the environment, the safety of GMO use in food, the use of GMOs as sources of biomaterials and biofuels and so on. 400 research groups participated in the project. The main conclusion of the report: "Biotechnologies and, in particular, GMOs do not carry greater risks than traditional technologies for breeding new varieties". The US, Russia and many other countries also financed the studies of GMOs from their budgets, concluding that these products are no more dangerous than conventional ones.
But here comes another charlatan, this time from the field of biology.
The Séralini affair was the controversy surrounding the publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. First published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, the article presented a two-year feeding study in rats, and reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp. Scientists and regulatory agencies subsequently concluded that the study's design was flawed and its findings unsubstantiated. Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013 after the authors refused to withdraw it. The editor-in-chief said that the article was retracted because its data were inconclusive and its conclusions unreliable. In June 2014 an amended version of the article was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe, and the raw data were made public.
Especially worthy of notice:
The journal did not conduct any further peer review; reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed.
And the results:
The press conference led to widespread negative media coverage for GM food, especially in Europe. Le Nouvel Observateur covered the press conference in a story called, "Yes, GMOs are poisons!".
The actions followed immediately:
At the time of the initial release, French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are confirmed, the government would press for a Europe-wide ban on the maize and The European Commission instructed the EFSA in Parma, Italy, to assess the study. In late September 2012, Russia temporarily suspended importing GM corn as a result of the study and in November 2012, Kenya banned all GM crops.
As it can be, unfortunately, seen, it takes one politically motivated charlatan to undo the good work of thousands.
These days European leaders not only prevent the entrance of genetically enhanced crops into Europe, they also sabotage introduction of such in Africa, in effect killing people.
The saga of ludicrous accusations, false "discoveries" and dirty politics around GMO issue could continue indefinitely, but there are limits to a post's length.
Strange that...
Suffice to add, that, strange as it is, the paranoid behavior of a good part of the public plays into the hands... of big corporations that produce GMO. What really happens is that the impossibly high thresholds, established for approval of GMO-based products reduce the number of competitors to those whose financial resources allow them to survive long enough to satisfy the necessary checks and controls.
So Monsanto***, which you so love to hate, gets that much stronger when you help to eliminate the competition.
Too bad.
(*) That, of course, if you believe that there are genes in your apple. Because:
According to the sociological survey published on the website of the Analytical Center of Yuri Levada, the question "Is it true that ordinary plants do not contain genes, and genetically modified plants - contain?" The correct answer "no" was given by only 29% of the respondents. By curious coincidence, the proportion of people who do not know the correct answer to the question about genes in tomatoes is roughly equal to the proportion of people who consider GMOs to be hazardous to health and subject to prohibition.
This and other tidbits were picked up by yours truly from an excellent book Summa Biotechnologiae (Сумма биотехнологии) by Dr. Alexander Panchin.
I hope the book will be translated soon enough.
(**) The biotechnology companies are perfectly aware of the nature tinkering with genes of its own babies. To avoid the enforced necessity to mark their products as GMO, several companies do something different: they analyse the plants' DNA, select the seeds that carry the preferable traits and grow and sell the seeds, without introducing any man-made modifications. Clever? Yes. Of course, it limits the ability to add some desired qualities, but what can you do with a hostile market?
(***) And no, Monsanto is not the biggest. Check this.
Don't even try to look for the definition of cognitive privilege in the dictionaries, it is too new. There is a definition of cognitive elite, though, that brings us close to the subject.
The cognitive elite of a society, according to Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, are those having higher intelligence levels and thus better prospects for success in life.
This definition brings you close to the steps needed for definition of cognitive privilege. Once defined, you can start happily operating this excellent tool for naming and shaming a new category of the privileged people.
The story started for me a few weeks ago, when the parents of my grandson met the teacher of his first school year. It so happened that the youngster was sent to a few private lessons to prepare him to school, for reasons not having to do with the story. He has some rudimentary reading and writing skills, nothing to brag about, but still. When the teacher heard about it, she went kind of pale. The reason, as she explained, was that she is used to receiving a bunch of schoolchildren from one single kindergarten, uniformly unable to read or write, so there was no need for her to treat anyone differently...
Of course, in this case the advantage of the boy is temporary, to disappear in a few weeks with the other kids learning and catching up. And, of course, as it is customary in schools, applying the famous peer pressure to those who dare to be different. Anyhow, the lesson here is that our schools are built for uniformity, one size fits all is the motto.
It so happened that in a few days after this meeting with the schoolteacher, I have stumbled on this disturbing discovery, made, most probably, by a millennial:
There are many kinds of privilege besides white privilege: cognitive privilege, for example. We now know that intelligence is not something we have significant control over but is something we are born with. We are living in a society in which success is increasingly linked to one’s intelligence. This is not to say that intelligence is the only factor that is important. All that is implied is that below a certain threshold of intelligence, there are fewer and fewer opportunities. These opportunities are being shifted upward to jobs that require heavier cognitive lifting or else are being replaced by robots. Thus, the accident of having been born smart enough to be able to be successful is a great benefit that you did absolutely nothing to earn. Consequently, you have nothing to be proud of for being smart.
Of course, the author, Dan Williams, doesn't have in mind any malevolent actions against the cognitively privileged folks. His goals are, for now, somewhat more relaxed:
But when doing so, we must also bear in mind the purpose of drawing attention to privileges. The purpose is not to instill a sort of Catholic guilt in someone’s psyche, nor is it an excuse to make oneself feel better by demonizing another. The purpose of pointing out someone’s privilege is to remind them of the infinite number of experiences that are possible and the very large number of experiences that are actual that they know very little about. The purpose is to enlarge their moral consciousness, to make them more sympathetic to people who are less fortunate than they are.
Not that I understand the items listed under "the purpose", but at least there is no reason for alarm. I think so. The whole "cognitive privilege" idea so far hasn't put roots among the other "privileges", like "white privilege", "cis gender privilege", "male privilege" etc. Hopefully it will remain dormant, at least for a while.
Taken together, the case of my grandson and the (so far) abortive attempt on raising the specter of "cognitive privilege" brought me to check the situation in schools with regard of treatment the bright children receive.
Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden: the results are similar and disturbing. A few quotes from the three sources sum up the situation pretty well:
For ordinary families with academically able children in the inner city or small town Canada, the everyday reality is bored kids seeking outside outlets for their creative or higher intellectual pursuits.
"The attitude at the moment is that you either fit in or go," says Clare Lorenz, the chairman of the support society, Children of High Intelligence (CHI). "It isn't how things should be."
Results show cause for concern. In particular, primary school appeared to be a hostile environment [for gifted kids].
It definitely doesn't look like the school system, at least the public one, is geared and ready to foster excellence and provide the necessary support to gifted kids, who are our hope and our future.
“Whatever it takes” is an attitude that drives not just Kirkkojarvi’s 30 teachers, but most of Finland’s 62,000 educators in 3,500 schools from Lapland to Turku—professionals selected from the top 10 percent of the nation’s graduates to earn a required master’s degree in education.
Otherwise it is no surprise that private schools, that promise all kinds of special education treats (and frequently don't deliver), tend to proliferate and take the money off many credulous parents. Some are, of course, quite good, but why shouldn't the respective states invest more in their most precious resource?
Instead we are facing the rising waves of idiotic identity politics nitpicking and creation of harmful buzzwords like "cognitive privilege" and similar. Like this product of some festering minds*:
In the latest example of identity politics taken to its absurd end, three Australian college professors believe that "playful urination practices – from seeing how high you can pee to games such as Peeball (where men compete using their urine to destroy a ball placed in a urinal) – may give boys an advantage over girls when it comes to physics."
A New York professor has sparked a debate among educators over whether or not algebra is too hard and should be dropped from the high school curriculum. Andrew Hacker, a political science professor at Queens College, insists the difficulty of learning algebra is responsible for the United States' high dropout rate.
Sure, buddy. Let's all switch to nursery rhymes. Or political science, whatever.
"We never had, don't have and will never have nuclear weapons. This doesn't mean that if someone decided to use such weapons against us, we wouldn't use them first."
Reportedly by Moshe Dayan*.
The above is an elegant (in an uncouth military way) prelude to the subject raised twice in three consecutive days by a Jerusalem Post writer:
First of all, the bomb (no pun intended, it is only in the sense of a scoop here):
Israel has less oversight of its nuclear program than other Western democracies, a study by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, which was obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, concludes. A summary of decades of work on the issue by Avner Cohen, a Professor of nonproliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and a Senior Fellow at CNS, and CNS Davis fellow Brandon Mok, but updated with recent developments, the study is being publicized just days before the issue of oversight goes before the High Court of Justice on Wednesday. ... ...the study shows comprehensively for the first time that the three Western democracies with nuclear weapons, the US, Britain and France, all manage to maintain a high level of secrecy while providing for comprehensive legislation and robust oversight that Israel does not have.
That it took decades of work to reach this earth-shattering conclusion is a sure pointer to the permissiveness of some institutions of higher learning (in this case Middlebury Institute of International Studies, which is an "American graduate school within Middlebury College, a private university located in Middlebury, Vermont"). Since Vermont parents apparently invest a lot in the college, they might want to finance a study that will research a difference between Israel and the three Western democracies as well. Maybe it will take less than several decades, who knows?
Professor Cohen doesn't want his research to end up as a purely academic exercise, he and quite a few allies are going further:
Still, the High Court’s September 6 hearing will be the first time in history that a judicial body will exercise broad oversight over the IAEC, with Cohen being one of leaders of the charge.
You will notice that professor Cohen, in his magnanimity, doesn't disallow us to keep the (alleged, of course) nuclear weapons ("the issue for me is not disarmament"). He has even changed his mind on opacity:
His original battle to get Israel to phase out its opacity, to openly acknowledge its nuclear status, Cohen has stopped fighting.
Of course, it is easy to notice the neat trick: forcing the HCJ (High Court of Justice) to discuss the issue of oversight, which is what professor Cohen fights for, immediately makes the opacity issue a thing of the past. But whatever...
The expert on nonproliferation, professor Cohen has only pure and noble goals in mind. He even assures us that:
I wanted to also have people behind it who would be apolitical and support the petition regardless and independently of the issue of disarmament.
Indeed, and this is why among the petitioners, only those mentioned in the article, appear the Israeli Disarmament Movement, led by Sharon Dolev, who initiated the petition; Moshe “Mossi” Raz, a former Meretz MK; and the attorney who filed the petition, Itay Mack. You can look up on the net the opinions of the former MK and of the attorney. The Israeli Disarmament Movement, bless their simple and stupid little brains, doesn't require a lookup, does it? Surely as apolitical as they come. Now pull the other leg, professor.
Well, I didn't want to get personal in that post, and professor Cohen deserves all possible benefit of the doubt. I certainly hate to use terms like "traitor" some less moderate folks throw around, but he made not a small misstep here:
We live in a different world with different questions.
We? Be interesting whom exactly Professor Cohen means by that "we", since he couldn't possibly mean "we" as in "Israelis", could he now? Not to mention that, even if we discard the thorny issue of that "we" as a moot point, looking around from our small hillock in our small swamp, the "different world" mentioned looks somewhat worse than it used to be.
But no matter. I hope the HCJ will boot the petition out quickly enough.
As for my personal opinion on the whole brouhaha, which you undoubtedly crave for: I can tell you with full confidence that Windows 10 in its 64 bit version is an extremely stable and reliable OS for my desktop. Really - imagine two weeks in a row without a single reboot!
Yonah Jeremy Bob, the author of the two above articles, did his best not to infuse them with his (or his editors') personal or editorial opinions. However, one passage in the second article filled me with wonder:
This issue has become all the more poignant with an ongoing public debate about the “Submarine Affair” plaguing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and multiple cases by IAEC employees hitting the labor courts this week and last week.
How exactly does the nuclear opacity/oversight case connect to the submarine affair mentioned will remain an open question for me. Why don't issues like Brexit, global warming or POTUS' recent shenanigans make that opacity more poignant will never be explained to me, I feel. More's the pity.
(*) It is not a verbatim quote, and attribution is somewhat difficult too. I have heard it several times, but couldn't find a source. Any contribution will be welcome.
It is not news that our illustrious Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, is fighting the HCJ (High Court of Justice) for several years. It is not news that she and several other "patriotic" MKs are hell bent to reduce the authority of HCJ, especially its power to strike down the laws HCJ considers unconstitutional*.
The latest flare-up is related to the treatment of illegal aliens.
Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked attacked Tuesday the High Court of Justice's (HCJ) Monday decision—in which it ruled that illegal aliens refusing to be transferred to a third African country cannot be detained indefinitely—insisting that the principle of Zionsim will not be subordinated to 'a universalistic system of individual rights.'
Of course, as always with Ms Shaked, her unhappiness with this decision caused another eruption of bile, directed at HCJ. Not at the border guards that let the immigrants in, not at the (undefined) authorities that bussed the immigrants to the poor neighborhoods of Tel Aviv and left them there, mostly to cope for themselves. Nope, it is HCJ that is supposed to bear the brunt of her unhappiness, in her superbly demagogic crescendo.
In a speech before the Israel Bar Association conference in Tel Aviv, Shaked addressed the hot-button issue of demographics and the Zionist goal of preserving a Jewish majority in Israel at the expense of human rights for asylum seekers, genuine or otherwise.
Despite the vitriolic protests of some in the crowds, Shaked promised that "Zionism will not continue bowing its head before a universalistic system of individual rights."
"Israel of 2017 is a country that's constitutionally made up of crisscrossing individual rights, without its Basic Laws referencing Israel being the nation state of the Jewish people," Shaked lamented.
"Zionism has become a blind spot for the judiciary," she continued. "Questions concerning it have become irrelevant. National challenges are a judicial blind spot, not at all to be considered in today's climate, and certainly not to be ruled in favor of when faced with individual rights issues.
And of course, it is HCJ that stands in the way of Ms Shaked's dreams.
Shaked said the Israeli judicial branch operates as if in a "dream," adopting a "utopian and universal worldview sanctifying individual rights to an extreme degree and ceasing taking part in the struggle for Israel's very existence." At this point, she called for an overhaul of the system that enables individual rights to displace the importance of national identity.
I have already dedicated twoposts to this particular firebrand's and her colleagues' incessant attacks on HCJ. There is hardly anything to add but a short history lesson. To start with - Menachem Begin's view of democracy:
Begin’s deep commitment to democracy was also expressed in his belief that there is no democracy without the rule of law. In this matter as well, Justice Zamir attested that Begin served as an outstanding role model, who practiced what he preached. This was reflected, for example, in Begin’s respect for the independence of the Prosecutor-General’s Office and for the need to comply with judicial rulings, as evidenced by his saying “there are judges in Jerusalem.” A memorable example is the case of a High Court ruling declaring the Elon Moreh settlement to be illegal. Justice Zamir recalled that at the tempestuous cabinet session that followed the ruling, several ministers demanded that the Court’s decision be ignored. Begin, however, silenced them, declaring that “the courts in Israel have made their decision and the government is obligated to honor and carry out whatever they decided.”
There is more in that document, but let's see a more powerful example.
In 1952, on the eve of the reparations affair that year, the head of the Herut movement, our teacher and leader MK Menachem Begin, put in his writings ("a view of life" as his favorite expression) his view of the three elements of a national liberation movement: freedom of the individual, improvement [Tikun] of the society and the superiority of the law. ... "The supremacy of the law will be expressed in the fact that an independent panel of judges will be granted not only the authority to determine, in the case of a complaint, the legality or justness of an administrative order or regulation issued by the executive branch, but also the power to adjudicate in the event of a complaint, whether the laws, enacted by the house of representatives (created, as we have seen, under a considerable influence of the government) are compatible with the Basic Law or the civil rights set forth in the law. "The right to a legal complaint in relation to the laws must be granted to every citizen if he considers himself directly or indirectly harmed by them.
Quite clear, isn't it? As well as timeless, but not for Ms Shaked and her bunch of supporters.
As well as being a critical issue that might be a first attempt to seriously undermine our democracy, the situation is a serious test for our (frequently spineless) prime minister. Does he understand the gravity of the attacks on HCJ? Is he aware of the dangers inherent in these attacks? Will he stand up to populism?
We shall see.
(*) To avoid nitpicking: there is no constitution in Israel, like in some other democracies, and the term "unconstititional" here means contradicting the basic laws of the state.
This post is "inspired" (a wrong word but what can one do?) by the coming elections in UK. In a few days, it looks like, Brits are going to make a step that, according to what my British friends were repeating since Corbyn became the Labour's leader, is simply impossible. Which is electing a relic of the old quasi-socialist era, one that has yet to miss a dodgy terrorist gang in the whole wide world he didn't find a kind word for.
Leaving the affinity to the terrorist groups aside, I am somewhat astonished by the fact of Corbyn being a kind of moldy sloganeering prophet of a dreamy let's-tax-them-rich-bastards-and-nationalize-all-the-rest demagoguery, while succeeding to get more than a passing attention from the British public, especially the young ones. The nation, so widely known for practically inventing common sense*, is buying unrealistic promises, proved by history again and again to be lies. Sounds hardly credible, does it?
But let's look at another part of the world for a minute. Here are Russians complaining about their Orthodox Church (translated by yours truly):
Wondrously (or not), the promises of a religion are similar to the promises of quasi-socialists of all times and all nations, ending in rivers of blood, mayhem and replacement of the hierarchy of those who have money by a hierarchy of those who have power (money comes to them eventually too). The equals get split into equal and more equal, the latter become the new chieftains, greedily acquiring more and more power and stepping over the bodies of their comrades, and the wheels of history will grind again - the bodies of the hopefuls.
But I learned with time that it is virtually impossible to warn the new generation of starry-eyed seekers about the realities of true and fair socialist heaven. Humans simply don't learn from their history and the old moldy slogans succeed again and again. The only answer one gets when imploring the people to look back is "yes, we know, but we'll do it right now, no mistakes and no worries". Which is, of course, patently wrong - it will go sideways the same way it has gone so many times before.
I wish I had some magic words that will wake up the dreamers. But there apparently aren't any, and better people than I am tried and tried again.
Too bad.
(*) But then, look at how so many intelligent and supposedly sane Brits sung paeans to the other piece of moldy dreck.
A disclaimer: the author of this post doesn't support* the new law that denies entry to BDS supporters and similar.
And no, I don't feel any sympathy to the BDS crowd who, by and large, diligently work to achieve one goal - so called "decolonization of Palestine". Unlike the fiery and dontcha-dare-argue-with-me Allison Kaplan Sommer, I don't believe that a visit to our place will possibly make a friend out of a BDS-nik enemy.
Saying this, I would like to address the concerns (or glee) of some of my friends and others who decry (or gloat upon) the supposed destructive impact this law has on Israeli democracy, imperfect as it is anyhow. Some of them even consider the law to be an abuse of human rights - no more and no less.
To consider the link between democracy and the right to visit (or emigrate to) a sovereign state, I would like to use a few recent examples from US of A.
Deportation of 35 Russian diplomats from the country by Barack Obama. Not only was it a rather sweeping measure (only a part of these 35 were involved in shady activities, most probably), there was also an issue of their families - all in all rather a nasty deal.
Obama putting an end to the 20-year-old "wet foot, dry foot" policy that allowed most Cuban migrants who reach U.S. soil to stay and become legal permanent residents after one year. No need to explain the meaning of this one, is there?
If you think that I brought up these examples to attempt some "whataboutery", perish the thought. It is just that when Israel is being discussed, many people tend to lose their ability to think logically. So here we have three decisions related to states' borders and people rights. Some of these are less draconian, some totally amoral (guess which). All of these are relevant to citizens of other states.
Now, how do these decisions impact the state of American democracy? Well, not at all. The point is... I have already made my point: these three decisions are relevant to citizens of other states only. Democracy, by definition, is not about its treatment of foreign citizens. Moreover, democracies are known to treat other states (democracies included) quite shabbily. Democracies cheat one another at finances, spy one on another and sometimes even go to war one with another - all this while remaining democracies.
And there is no deity given right of a foreign citizen to cross the border of a democratic state. As everyone who ever stood in the line before border control and experienced the unwelcoming scowl of the border policeman/policewoman knows only too well.
So there.
(*) The new law is, first of all unnecessary: the border control has always had the authority to turn back unwanted visitors, which authority was exercised from time to time. The worrying tradition of our illustrious MKs to pile one unnecessary law upon another continues. After all, the competition of showing off his/her patriotism never ends with our solons.
To those who would like to see it as a political issue: not on this page, please. Whether this law is the death knell for the so far mythical two state solution isn't in the scope of this post.
The hardheadedness of the 60 members of Knesset who brazenly pushed forward a law, condemned even by our own attorney general, that goes against any logic (that is, aside of "this is all our land anyway"), this stubborn insistence of ignoring the basic laws of the state (and the international laws as well) - this is very much in the scope.
On Monday night, Israeli lawmakers passed into law a measure that allows Israel to compensate Palestinians whose land has been taken over by settlers, instead of removing the outposts. The law applies to 53 outposts and homes within existing settlements recognized by Israel as having been built on Palestinian land without a permit...
Of course, the law was immediately condemned by UN (as expected), France (same) and even by the recently visited* by our illustrious PM Britain, hours after his plane took off. But it is not the issue I want to discuss, not at all.
The coalition has decided to disregard the warning of the attorney general, the man who is supposed to serve as the midwife for the newly hatching laws. The coalition, usually having its far right firebrands and its moderates, this time decided** to follow the firebrands and to present a united stand. If I had to guess the logic of the moderate coalition members, it will be something like this: "OK, we'll show ourselves to be real Zionists and let the High Court shoot this law down, since it clearly wouldn't pass the High Court in any case". To tell you the truth, I much prefer the firebrands, at least with them you have a better chance of knowing what they think.
Unfortunately, passing of the law in Knesset bodes ill for the ever strained relations between the lawmaking branch of our government and the judicial one. Many, too many of our MKs, firebrands or not, don't seem to understand or to care about the difference between the law, the justice, the politics and the lawmakers' wishful thinking. It is far from being the first time when the High Court is pushed into another confrontation that could have been avoided, had the firebrands some respect for the law and had they listened to the attorney general.
It is not for nothing that minister Levin "attacked the legitimacy of Israel’s High Court to decide on the constitutionality of laws (sic!) Tuesday morning, ahead of an expected challenge to a controversial law legalizing West Bank outposts passed late the night before". The minister knows very well that the High Court will be very quickly hit by a load of suits regarding the outpost law and clearly he is already preparing the ammo for the next round of attacks against the court. As for the chances of the law in the High Court, here comes a man in the know:
The bill could however still be challenged, with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman saying last week: "The chance that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court is 100 percent."
I hope not to see our country in a situation where the future judges of the High Court will be chosen from the members of the Likud Central Committee. Is it too much to ask?
P.S. As heard on the radio: attorney general intends to present to the High Court his arguments against the outpost law, if the law is challenged in High Court (which is practically a certainty). The man who is supposed to defend parliamentary laws in court... almost never happened before.
(*) Bibi, for some strange reason, decided to let the voting on that law go ahead while he was visiting London. Be interesting to know why, although one can easily guess: this is a typical for our hero way to wash his hands of both the future success or the future demise of that law. Not that the London visit itself was a great success...
(**) With the only exception of a man who always has my respect, if sometimes I might disagree with his position: Benny Begin. He called this law "a moral travesty that legalizes theft and leaves a stain on Israel". And Begin is far from being a lefty.
As a person who doesn't understand a lot about America, I have been trying to keep away from the events of this unfortunate (for America) year. And I wouldn't even mention the results of that drama/tragicomedy. Some good people told me off and I shall heed their advice, given in a friendly way.
However, many questions remain and even accumulate. This post was triggered (yes, I know) by an innocent enough occasion. Reading a book Leaving Home by Garrison Keillor, which book is, in fact, a collection of his "it's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon" monologues, which I loved - terminally and unconditionally - from the first listening occasion, back then in 199... If somebody requires a list of things/people that make America great, I thought since, Garrison Keillor should definitely be on it.
Reading one of these, I got curious about something in Keillor's biography, so googling for Garrison Keillor was a natural, if not very well considered at these mad times (as I know now), action. Well, I should have considered that action a bit more carefully, because what I got first was this:
Part of the article is a somewhat natural (for a liberal* and a Democrat) horror at the elections result. It repeats many other missives I happened to stumble upon (not really seeking all that, believe you me). So I wouldn't expand on this part. What really hit me was the general air of derision, condescension and alienation of/toward these same people whom, as a whole, Keillor used to describe with love and understanding all these years. Now he is designating them "Trumpists", which could have been fine with me, if only it was the only view he enforces on the reader.
But no, it gets worse. The "we" versus "them" melody grows stronger with each line in this piece. And it doesn't take long to understand who are "we", the definition is unequivocal: "we liberal elitists". As to "them", it becomes exceedingly clear too, when you see this at the end of the article: "Let the uneducated have their day".
Wow. So the first question will be: does anyone expect to close the rift(s) in American society, espousing this attitude?
And the second question: how about these liberal elitists (see the clip below)?
(*) No, not a liberal in the "pinko commie" sense many Americans use this word today, rather a classic liberal. Or so I thought. Till now, that is.
P.S. Oh, and I learned a bit from this article. Recommended.
And here is a debunking of Keillor's "uneducated" blip.
During the few months before the last British local elections I have heard from most of my FB friends apocalyptic predictions re the imminent electoral disaster in wait for the Labour party under the fearless leadership of Mr Corbyn. The reasons, indeed, were many and good, such as (but not limited to):
Extreme left orientation of the new leadership.
The long list of extremist or outright terrorist organizations or states, such as Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas etc Corbyn refused to denounce or to cut his links with.
Support of mostly totalitarian regimes hiding behind socialist makeup (Venezuela and similar).
Inability to stand up to any of myriad human rights violations of Islamist regimes.
Inability to pronounce the word "Israel".
Employment of the unrepentant Stalinist Seumas Milne as a PR manager.
The purges of the party ranks of those who are insufficiently loyal to the new leadership.
And then came the unending list of the cases of open anti-Semitism among the prominent members of the party, the list that continues to grow as we speak.
So here we are, a few days after the elections. Of course, the opposite sides of the barricades try to present different pictures of the results, such as:
Voters do not see Labour under Jeremy Corbyn as a "credible party of future government," a member of the shadow cabinet has admitted.
Despite the huge attention paid to the performance of Jeremy Corbyn’s party, the Conservatives actually suffered a net loss of more than twice as many council seats as Labour, the final local election results have revealed.
Whatever they say, the results, to my uninformed eyes, do not seem even close to the predicted disaster. While Labour took some drubbing in Scotland, it came out mostly unscathed otherwise, with a sound victory in London. Unless, and it is utterly possible, I just don't know how to read the numbers.
In short: correct me if I am wrong, comrades, but the British voters just don't seem to give a flying donut about the blood-boiling items (partially) listed above. And that includes this growing list of anti-Semitic Labour luminaries.
Am I right here or am I missing something?
Meanwhile, waiting for answers, I shall remain confused:
Vox Political can reveal today the origin of that image – the picture of Israel superimposed into the American Midwest that caused so much fuss last week, and This Writer can categorically state: It is not anti-Semitic. It was a reaction against proposals to forcibly relocate Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, Gaza, or anywhere else claimed by the Israeli state, moving them into Jordan or even Saudi Arabia. It was created for an article on a website called Redress Online [link removed], dated August 4, 2014. The site describes itself as “an independent, privately-funded, non-profit-making website dedicated to exposing injustice, disinformation and bigotry, and to providing thought-provoking interpretations of current affairs…
The site describes itself as it describes itself, as do many other similar sites. Should an experienced journalist take this description seriously without applying a bit of common sense? Because the picture, which Mike Sivier previously attributed to Norman Finkelstein is now attributed to the author of the Redress Online article. Take a deep breath - it is Gilad Atzmon.
I am not at all sure I understand now what kind of point Mike has intended to make, bringing up Atzmon to defend Finkelstein, but as a matter of common courtesy I have to respond. So:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for troubling yourself to respond. I shall try to answer your salient points one by one, instead of leveling general accusations that could hardly be addressed.
There is an interesting point to mention: your habit of putting the word “anti-Semitism” between quotation marks. The reason I find it interesting is that you've decided to be the judge of what is offensive or, in this case, anti-Semitic. Why don't you leave it to the target of the offense, namely Jews, to decide what is offensive to them? I remember reading about one of the leaders of African-American movement in US, who said that it is up to black people to decide what is offensive to black people. This should be something for all of us to think about, shouldn't it?
So, going back to the offensive picture, which you proclaim to be not anti-Semitic at all. First of all, again - the fact that somebody else has drawn it doesn't make it less offensive. Ms Shah doesn't get a get-out-of jail card for this reason. You are saying:
It seems clear he was saying there’s a world of difference between passing around a tongue-in-cheek image and actually going through with the action it suggested...
Indeed, there is a world of difference: the former is an act of anti-Semitism, as perceived by lots of people who viewed the picture and the latter is an act of ethnic cleansing. I can assure you than neither yours truly nor lots of people who have seen the picture are aware of its tongue-in-cheek background. It was, just as the taken out of context quote from MLK in that other picture you have used to defend Ms Shah, perceived by one and all as extremely offensive and yes, although I hate to use this word too frequently, very anti-Semitic.
Now to another point you made:
If Simply Jews knows of Atzmon, then it seems likely the site would have known of the Redress Online piece, but not one word about it is mentioned. Why not?
Sorry, Mike, I and many other people know about both Finkelstein and Atzmon, but not to the tune of following their copious writings on all sites all the time. The idea that I should know about every crappy publication like that is, frankly, a bit over the top. Believe it or not, I have a life.
To the next point:
Vox Political articles are often opinions – but always based on the facts available. That is where This Blog and Simply Jews part company, it seems.
If you indeed assign such weight to the facts, how come you are quoting statements from Atzmon without any shadow of criticism or a check with other source? Stuff like this:
The article itself states: “Israelis and other Zionists often call for a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, namely, their “transfer” to Jordan or even Saudi Arabia.
You might really want to check this and, hopefully, not with Gilad Atzmon, Mike. Yep, there is a fringe group of right wing Israelis (I really don't know what is meant by "other Zionists") that might express such desires, but the all-embracing statement like the quoted could have been born only in the Jew-hating brain of Atzmon, that for sure.
This Writer was alerted on Twitter to an article about me on a site calling itself Simply Jews. It seems to be mostly a character assassination of Norman Finkelstein and the author of the Redress Online piece, one Gilad Atzmon, who is mentioned as having reblogged my article.
I disagree with your description of my post, Mike. Its main points were two, although not highlighted in any way, but I shall repeat them here:
You see, Mike, the map that calls for ethnic cleansing is offensive and racist, no matter who produced it. This is the first and the main point. And if someone else (Ms Shah in our case) publishes it again, it doesn't become less racist or less offensive. Which is the second point.
As for your reference to so called character assassination of Finkelstein and Atzmon: I really don't know much about you, and I am in a quandary here. So please help me out: could it be that you, a journalist, don't know anything about these two characters? If you do and still persist with the statement that what I said about them is a character assassination, I might have wasted my time. I offered you a link on Finkelstein in the previous post if you really need to get some info, and here is another link with some stuff about Atzmon. There is a lot more on the 'net, if you would only care...
There is an expression in Hebrew that could be roughly translated as "To put your head in order". This is exactly what that excellent article by Ben-Dror Yemini might do for you, if you are open to learn something.
This is the story of a soldier who killed in cold blood a terrorist who was lying on the ground wounded and helpless. This did not happen in Israel of 2016, but rather in Afghanistan in 2011, in the notorious Helmand Province. The soldier was Alexander Wayne Blackman, a sergeant in the British Royal Marines.
Yep, read the article, there are hundreds ways to spend your time on much less valuable pursuits. I know.
‘There are in fact, two things, science and opinion;
the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.’
(Hippocrates)
Anyone who doesn't look at modern medicine with sense of wonder, liberally mixed with trepidation, could skip this post altogether. However, the goings-on in some corners of this noble activity area should be of interest to many, I would suggest. Since you never know...
Mira Sucharov is Associate Professor of Political Science and Assistant Dean at Carleton University, in Ottawa, Canada, and a blogger at Haaretz.
It was my first encounter with Ms Sucharov's blogging - this article in Haaretz titled Crying Wolf on Campus anti-Semitism: The Vassar College Talk Was No Blood Libel, and I have to say that, even being somewhat familiar with the subtleties of the modern progressive discourse, I spent the reading time in amazement and disbelief. Political Science is marching forward, leaving us heathens in the dust.
There is much to fisk in the article, but I shall leave it for later, trying to focus on something that seems to me (at the moment) to be a very important point. Which in this case is the famous issue of stifling the anti-Zionist discourse and freedom of speech, so dear to prof Sucharov's. "Academic freedom", as she specifies it. The danger to freedom of speech, academic or not, according to prof Sucharov, comes from an article in Wall Street Journal, titled Majoring in Anti-Semitism at Vassar, which expresses a highly negative opinion of goings on in Vassar in general and of the lecture by an anti-Zionist professor, one Jasbir Puar, in particular. The WSJ article, co-authored by two respected scientists with a good deal of experience in education, riled the progressive community so much that, according to prof Sucharov,
Meanwhile, hundreds of faculty members from across the United States have issued a statement to Vassar’s president asking her to “write a letter to the Wall Street Journal…condemning in no uncertain terms the unjustifiable attack on Vassar and on Professor Puar.”
In one particular example of the condemnation:
Ian S. Lustick, a professor of political science at University of Pennsylvania, told me by email that he signed the statement “to show solidarity against the campaign to restrict the space of politically correct discussion on anything pertaining to Israel and Palestinians.”
So the article in WSJ is restricting the "politically correct" (how absurd is that - you be the judge) discussion and stifling the academic freedom? I have read that article twice and can't, no matter how I tried, find a shadow of an attempt to stifle anything. Derision - yes, criticism - in droves (not that prof Sucharov even tried to respond to it) - but nothing to suggest that the authors propose to forbid or otherwise restrict the disgusting phenomenon.
While I can't compete with a political science or gender studies professors in arcane uses of professional English, there are two English words that the nowadays progressive scientists might re-learn, to their benefit. The first one is "debate":
Debate (Noun): A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
Here is an example of debate:
The other word is "stifling". The word is a beloved battle cry of the modern anti-Zionists, trumpeted everywhere from the very same platforms the said anti-Zionists claim to be not allowed to.
Stifling (Noun): Forceful prevention; putting down by power or authority. "the stifling of all dissent"
And here is an example of stifling, practiced far and wide in the institutions of high learning in North America lately, with total lack of resistance (and sometimes even with support) from the progressive teachers:
So, to conclude this part: The WSJ article is a good example of debate. Nothing to do with stifling - of academic or any other freedoms. And, speaking about Vassar - here is more stifling, in all its revolting glory.
The rest of this text is about fisking prof Sucharov's Haaretz blog post. Click on "Read more..." if of interest.
Warning: this is a long post about our extreme left and right and about the two tearing the nation, troubled as it is, apart. While the said nation's leaders diligently pursue the policy of doing nothing in either direction, preferring the grim status quo to any risk taking. Thus providing fertile ground for the extremists to do what they do best: provoke and incite.
Thankfully, due to circumstances out of my control, I didn't post earlier anything on the subject of BtS (Breaking the Silence). Thankfully, because during the last month or so more input came in and I had some time to digest it.
But first things first and let's start with a disclaimer: I've always resented the curious mix of matters military and human morality standards. The whole business of IDF or any other army contending for the title of "the most moral army in the world" smells false to me, being a clumsy attempt to apply a dress that is simply meant for somebody (something) else. Army is not about morality or justice, and while its goal - to defend - could be considered moral, the means used don't have much to do with morality, the opposite is true. Killing and subjugating people could be regulated by rules created by the people for their army, but "moral army" is still an oxymoron. With all due respect to professor Asa Kasher.
And the second disclaimer: as an ex-soldier, part of my military service was (unhappily) spent in various activities in the Judea and Samaria. Just as a citizen who happens to observe reprehensible behavior of a small part of his brethren, I happened to observe such behavior on part of (very few) IDF soldiers toward the Palestinians. IDF is just a representative part of population, no better and no worse than the latter. As any other army, I gather, with an added strain of being forced to do the work police would be much better suited to perform in the occupied territories. Any soldier who denies that cases like these occur is either deaf and blind or exceptionally lucky - if you believe in luck.
Left.
Some years ago, with the inception of BtS as a Hebrew-speaking initiative, aimed at reducing the unruly and/or unlawful behavior of IDF soldiers, I was rather pleased with the idea. Working hand in hand with the military police, military AG and the commanders in the field, such outfit could have brought if not a stop, at least a proper treatment and reduction of such behavior. Or so it seemed at the time. Unfortunately, with time the expectations were not exactly matched by reality. First of all, BtS folks got a taste for publicity, adding English to their site, thus securing more exposure... just a second, exposure to what? Justice? Morality? Hardly, mostly publicity. Surprisingly or not (Israelis speak almost all languages), articles in Dutch* appear as well. One naturally asks oneself: why a group whose declared purpose is to improve IDF's behavior, would want the international fame and glory? Especially since anyone could predict the negative impact of that fame on the relationship with IDF, the government and, indeed, with the general population... The trend of "internationalization" doesn't stop with the Internet site, BtS is taking the show on the road quite successfully as well:
BtS has been part of at least 50 events in Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and South Africa” in the past three years and the group’s work is, either directly or via third parties, “almost entirely funded by European governments.
But, publicity hungry or not, BtS continued to provide raw material, and whether you like them or not, you have to keep your ears open even to messages you don't like. As long as you believe the messenger. And here is precisely where I (like a lot of others, I guess) got an unpleasant shock.
A short introduction to the following clip: Amit Deri, a reservist officer, was incensed by some of the stories told by BtS and, as part of his private initiative, recorded a few episodes where one Avner Gvaryahu (the Director of Public Outreach for BtS in the past) leads a group of foreign tourists via various sites in in the Judea and Samaria, providing some fascinating stories, allegedly from his own military past. Exaggerated hearsay spiced by lies and/or pure inventions all of that. You can skip the Hebrew parts of the clip, watch only the recordings of the "tours", where English is used by Avner Gvaryahu.
The ex-comrades from Mr Gvaryahu's unit responded to his amazing performance as one in this (unfortunately Hebrew only) recording. I am proud to notice that not a single one used incendiary or simply unparliamentary expressions toward their subject. A brief of their response could be read here.
I was told that BtS distanced itself from the above performance of Avner Gvaryahu, however I couldn't find a trace of it in a public forum. Moreover, Gvaryahu's name proudly appears on various pages of BtS' site even today, after his travesty of "guided tours" became public. And when one of the leading members of BtS behaves as he does, what attitude could be expected from Israeli public opinion of the whole BtS business? "Business" is the fitting term now... More on BtS in an excellent review by Petra Marquardt-Bigman.
And recently the nation got another unpleasant shock from the extreme left, when the ugly case of an ugly man, Ezra Nawi, has clearly demonstrated that the extreme fringe of the anti-Zionist left has lost the last vestiges of morality in the pursuit of its ideological objectives. However, this fringe hasn't lost its support from the usual crowd of Haaretz irregulars and opinion makers.
Right.
And, while we here in Israel are being consoled by some rare rays of light, such as this publicly displayed favorable opinion of the leading military experts, the other (opposite?) side of the political map is not sitting still.
And I don't mean the wretched NGO transparency bill, nor do I care whether it is modeled on existing US law or on its Russian counterpart. Our Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, while a worthy subject for the issue of unbridled lawmaking activism, hardly burdened by too much thinking, is not on the agenda of this post.
I have in mind other dangerous ideological/criminal groups that, by their mere existence, not to mention activities, are busily digging under the democratic foundation of this nation. What started as a series of small acts of vandalism by "Price Tag", initially ignored by our security branches and treated too lightly by the police and the courts, became a well organized, well spread organization, ready to turn a page from petty vandalism to hateful acts of arson and murder, as in Duma arson. Where the left, as in case of Ezra Nawi, prefers to leave the killing to the other party, the brainwashed and fanatic followers of a few rabbis are ready to destroy and kill, believing in the celestial mandate.
This new wave of Jewish extremists is very well organized, their clandestine branch, based on small cells of fanatics, is a very tough nut to crack for our security organs. Their ideological leadership, the one responsible for brainwashing of easily flammable youth, is well protected by the laws and regulations of democracy they despise so much. Ironically or not, like everywhere else in the world, the anti-democratic extremists' groups learn perfectly well how to use the soft belly of democracy they aim to overthrow.
Thus the ideologists don't bother to hide their hateful views, knowing that there is not much the government could do about it, no matter how racist or anti-democratic their propaganda became.
Meir Ettinger, seen escorted by two cops in the picture above, is a specimen of the ideological branch. I doubt that the state will find enough evidence to link him to the Duma crime, he is more of a "thinker", inspiring the murderous actions of his followers. In one, quite important aspect, Ettinger and his likes might be even more dangerous to the well being of the state than his illustrious grandfather, Meir Kahane: where the latter considered himself a Zionist, Ettinger is as anti-Israeli as they come, openly promoting destruction of the Zionist state as his goal:
"The idea of the revolt is very simple," Ettinger wrote in his blog. "The State of Israel has many 'weak points', subjects people tiptoe around so as not to cause riots. What we will do is simply 'spark' all these powder kegs, all the questions and contradictions between Judaism and democracy. Between the Jewish character and the secular character, without fearing the consequences. Disrupting the ability to govern the country. That's the main part of the revolt's 'vort' (word) to break the rules and the entire status quo.
And more... whether he was directly involved in the Duma arson or not, the arsonists have done his bidding. Just like Hamas, the new generation of Sicarii thrives on blood and violence, sowing terror and unrest to reach their goals.
The infamous celebration of the Duma murders during a wedding, recorded and published some time ago, shows how widespread and shameless the right-wing extremism has become.
And while the "Price Tag" and related extremist gangs act on the fringe of the society, right wing outfits similar to Im Tirzu, while ostensibly deploring violence and claiming to be Zionist, use incendiary language as a matter of course. Their recent response to the (indeed deplorable) lies of described above BtS was nothing if not baying for blood. And, seeing how the extremist fringe is actively seeking targets for their own kind of righteousness, this call for blood might be answered quite soon.
This is a warning call: Something bad is happening to us. The margins are taking over the public discourse, turning it into a discourse of hatred. The Israeli public is not there, but it's being dragged there. Israel has a sane majority, a huge majority, but instead of the Knesset presenting a model for a practical discussion, instead of keeping its distance from the violent discourse - it has moved closer to it.
Something bad is happening to us indeed.
But who is taking the challenge up?
(*) Not too surprising: Dutch folks appear in the list of the donating outfits. According to this source, "One Dutch organization demanded Breaking the Silence provide at least 90 testimonies of IDF soldiers and to publish what was described as 'The Occupation Encyclopedia'."
