Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

In taking over much of Beirut (including Sunni neighborhoods formerly controlled by pro-government forces), Hezbollah has engineered what I call a “coup on the ground.” It hasn’t touched the levers of power or elected government. But by controlling much of the territory of the capital city it has taken physical control of everything else. The message from Hezbollah is: “we can topple you at will.” And shows the government to be little more than a paper tiger. It reminds me in some ways (though not precisely) of Hamas’ pre-emptive Gaza coup of last June and one can certainly say that Hamas and Hezbollah have learned from each other to the detriment of their respective adversaries.

I don’t know how this will play out, but Hezbollah has clearly upped the ante which may eventually or immediately require the pro-U.S. Lebanese government to resign under duress and accede to Hezbollah political demands for veto power over most political decisions. This seems a disaster for the viability and integrity of a democratic Lebanon as a whole (if there can be said to be such a thing as “a whole”). It is a sad day.

But the main purpose of this post is to decry the bankrupt U.S. and Israeli policy toward Syria which might’ve help avoid this sorry mess. Both governments stubbornly wore ideological blinders which prevented them from embracing a Syrian track to resolve the Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese conflict. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. Now, Syria and her Hezbollah allies sit in the cat bird seat.

Think where Israel and Lebanon could be if Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert had responded positively to Alon Liel’s negotiating track with Syria over the past year or so in which the latter essentially provided the outline for a negotiated settlement with Syria. Instead, Liel was met with stony silence or outright disdain. It appears that over the past few months Olmert has gradually turned the Titanic around regarding Syria negotiations. But it is too late in several senses. It is too late because his political career is almost over in light of his current bribery investigation. And it is too late because Hezbollah has pre-empted any possible future settlement in which it might’ve been neutered or moderated.

When thinking of this conflict I’m always reminded of Abba Eban’s saying intended by him to criticize the Palestinians who, he claimed: “Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Of course, like many who are quick with bons mot, Ebban neglected to understand that this referred to himself and his own government as well.

tags abba eban, gaza, hamas, hezbollah takes over beirut, israel syria peace negotiations, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

I don’t know if you could ever find a stranger conflict of interest in Israeli law and politics. Ehud Olmert’s former law partner and business associate, Uri Messer, is presently singing to Israeli police and the attorney general about his involvement in the funds Morris Talansky raised for Olmert. From what I’ve read, all funds collected were passed on to Messer who then appropriated them. That’s why Messer is such a crucial figure in the investigation.

Ynet and my blog reader Amir have noted that Messer is married to Davida Lachman-Messer, the deputy attorney general. I’ve never heard of a a chief witness in a bribery investigation being married to a senior officer in the investigating agency. Wow, is that a conflict if there ever was one! Here in the U.S. this would be a perfect opportunity to appoint a special counsel in order to remove the conflict from the AG’s office. Or else you’d have to completely quarantine the deputy AG from involvement with the case. And how could you?

I wonder how, or if Israeli law deals with such an issue. I’m hoping Shamai Leibowitz, a former Israeli lawyer and reader of this blog, can enlighten us on this.

Shamai has translated the relevant portions of Israeli penal law dealing with bribery charges:

Israeli Penal Code (1977):

Bribery Offenses:

290. (a) A public servant who receives a bribe in return for an action related to his work – is punishable by a [maximum] sentence of 7 years or 7 years and a fine of 10,000 Liras.

(b) In this section, “public servant” – including an employee of a corporation performing a public service.
…

293. In bribery offense, it is irrelevant –

(1) if it was money, or something with monetary value, or service or another benefit;

(2) if it was given for the commission or an omission of an action, delay of an action, expediting an action, slowing an action, giving preference or discrimination;

(3) if it was for a specific action or for general favoritism;

(4) if it was for an act by the receiver of the bribe or for the receiver’s influence on another person;

(5) if it was given by the giver of the bribe or by another; if it was given to the receiver or to another person on behalf of the receiver; if it was from the outset or in retrospect; or if the person benefiting from the bribe was the receiver of another person;

(6) if the receiver’s status was one of authority or service; if it was permanent or temporary or it was general or for a specific purpose; if it was for pay or without pay; if it was in volunteer work or fulfilling a legal duty;

(7) if it was received in order to stray from the obligations in fulfilling the receiver’s duties or if it was for the performance of an action that the receiver was obligated to perform according to law.

I’m a little unclear as to whether or not there’s a contradiction between sections 290 and 293 in that 290 requires “an action in return for” the bribe. While section 293 seems to say it doesn’t need to be in return for various types of actions. But other Israeli readers tell me that section 290 is more relevant and there doesn’t need to be a specific quid pro quo for a crime. However, the prosecution will have to prove that the money went directly into Olmert’s pocket rather than into his election campaign (as the statute of limitations would’ve run out on this crime). That’s why Messer is crucial to the case.

tags Attorney Messers testimony complicates matters for PM, davida lachman messer, olmert bribery case, talansky, uri messer, ynet

The end of Ehud Olmert’s prime ministership, if not his political career, is nigh. Today, the gag order was lifted on his bribery case and he told the nation that if indicted, he would resign. It seems almost impossible that Olmert will not be indicted (though it’s still a slim possibility). If so, it would likely mean the end of the career of a politician who had nine lives, if not more.

Haaretz reveals that Long Island Orthodox Jewish fundraiser, Morris Talansky, funneled “hundreds of thousands of dollars” into Olmert’s coffers in the 1990s while he was mayor of Jerusalem and a government minister:

Long Island Jewish American mogul and millionaire financier Morris Talansky, who is suspected of bribing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is described by acquaintances as a man who keeps his business affairs out of the spotlight.

Although he is a known fundraiser for and contributor to Jewish causes in the United States and Israel, nobody seems to know how he made his money. Moreover, though he has participated in dozens of public events, his photograph cannot be found on the Internet.

Olmert appears to claim that the funds were used for political purposes. It appears that the police believe Olmert used the money for himself.

One should add that Ehud Olmert is not the only Israeli politician suspected of corruption. Ariel Sharon’s son Omri, is serving time in an Israeli prison for political corruption. Most of Israel’s recent prime minister’s have been accused of similar activities.

Talansky is an interesting, if shadowy figure. Though he was trained as an Orthodox rabbi, he seems to have turned to non-profit Jewish fundraising. He spent 20 years as executive director of the American Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical Center. As the Orthodox hospital is located in Jerusalem, Talansky engaged Olmert numerous times to speak at charity events on its behalf:

Talansky makes some of his money by fundraising and consulting for Israeli and Jewish charity organizations. Among other things, he held a key post in the New Jerusalem Fund’s U.S. office; in the past, he also raised money for the ORT network.

However, Talansky made his name largely due to the funds he raised as executive director of the American Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical Center, which solicits overseas donations for the Jerusalem hospital. A Jewish activist in Brooklyn said Talansky was “the main New York activist for Shaare Zedek. In his heyday, he raised millions of dollars for the hospital.”

“He didn’t bother with small contributions, he went for the big ones,” the activist added.

It was during this period that Talansky met Olmert, who, during his 10-year term as mayor of Jerusalem, was frequently featured at Shaare Zedek dinners and other fundraising events sponsored by the medical center.

I too have been a fundraiser for Jewish non-profits. I suspect, without any direct proof, that Talansky may’ve introduced Shaare Zedek’s wealthier donors to Olmert and persuaded them to become donors to his political career. [UPDATE: The Forward seems to confirm this notion.] It is very flattering for a certain class of wealthy American Jew to hobnob with Israeli politicians, as it would be for a wealthy American to hobnob with presidential candidates.

It is also possible that Talansky may’ve had a financial motivation if he took a cut of every donation given to Olmert by a prospect the former referred to the latter. Though it is possible that Talansky had personal wealth of his own in those days to give to Olmert, as a salaried Jewish fundraiser I don’t know where he would’ve found such wherewithal. It seems more likely to me that Talansky would’ve been a conduit rather than the source of funds.

After reading this N.Y. Times story Talansky looks more and more like a character from opera bouffe or a bad Mafia spoof. He meets unsavory characters at Manhattan topless bars and solicits them to beat up on deadbeats who’ve cheated him in business deals. Yup, Rabbi Moshe Talansky frequents topless bars. A fellow Manhattan lawyer calls him the “Lawyer’s Full Employment Act” because he’s so litigious. He even sued for alleged breach of contract a Jewish museum which had hired him as a fundraising consultant and fired him after a few months. My guess is he never showed up and never raised a dime.

Olmert’s top aide listed Talansky in her schedule as “the laundryman.” “Bag man” would’ve been closer to the truth. Given Talansky’s history are we surprised Olmert agreed to resign if indicted? Imagine how many more skeletons might be rattling around in Talansky’s closet.

Ynet claims that Olmert’s former law and business partner is cooperating with authorities against him.  Not a good sign which perhaps explains the doom and gloom emanating from the PM’s office.

A couple of questions are going through my mind. I haven’t heard of any motive for Talansky’s alleged contributions or bribes (except for the scenario I advanced above). Did he get anything in return or was he doing it out of friendship to Olmert? Can there be a bribery conviction if the police can’t point to a benefit Talansky got in return for the funds?

Olmert will claim the funds were meant for political purposes, which still might’ve been illegal but at least not bribery. Does Olmert have to prove that he used them for political purposes? What if neither the police nor Olmert can actually document with certainty what he actually used the funds for?

tags bribery, olmert, political-corruption, shaare zedek hospital, talansky

The N.Y. Times has a new Israel correspondent, Ethan Bronner. He replaced Steven Erlanger, who I thought was a generally good reporter with a few serious blind spots when it came to dispassionate reporting on the conflict. Bronner has begun writing his first in depth reports based around Israel’s 60th anniversary.

Before I talk about them, I wanted to put this in some context. I read a lot of journalism about the conflict. My major source is probably the Times, since it’s the newspaper I grew up on. Because I am passionate about both Israel and good journalism, and because, for better or worse the Times is our nation’s newspaper of record–especially on foreign affairs, I’m finely attuned to how the Times reports this issue.

I was seriously disappointed by Bronner’s piece on Israeli Arabs and the Nakba, . Why? Good journalism about the conflict takes you inside the hearts and minds of those who live on both sides of the divide. I think that after reading a profile of someone on either side, the partisans from the opposite side should feel deeply discomfited. Because a great journalist forces you to walk a mile in the moccasins of “the other.” Many Arabs and Israelis distinctly do not want to do this.

Instead of writing deeply personal, intimate journalism, Bronner has written a very much outsider’s perspective on Israeli Arab society. He hasn’t gotten anything egregiously wrong. He hasn’t shown any explicit pro-Israel bias. But nor has he attempted to plumb the heart of his subjects. If you look at the journalism of James Bennet, one of Bronner’s predecessors as bureau chief, you’ll see what he means. In this profile, Bennet presents the paradox and double life of a former IDF soldier married to a Palestinian with heartbreaking detail. You emerge from reading this type of journalism with a profound sense of the tragedy of this conflict for both sides. As opposed to when you finish reading Bronner, you feel you’ve read a dutifully reported piece with little of the empathy evidenced in Bennet’s writing.

Good writing on the Israel-Palestinian conflict is all about nuance and emphasis. Reporters like Bronner will rarely get a fact wrong. But it’s all in how you put the facts together; where you place emphasis, and how heavily you emphasize one particular fact over another. And in this sense, the new correspondent’s work is disappointing.

Here are a few of the things that made me uncomfortable about Bronner’s piece:

On Thursday, which is Independence Day, thousands will gather in their former villages to protest what they have come to call the “nakba,” or catastrophe, meaning Israel’s birth.

While I am not an Arabic expert, I have never seen the word Nakba without a capital letter. Since this refers to a specific event, and a seminal and catastrophic one at that, removing the capital letter seems to diminish unintentionally the importance of the event. Again, perhaps not an egregious mistake, but a sign that the writer isn’t at one with his subject, but rather looking from the outside. Even more important, I take serious exception to Bronner’s interpretation of the reference of Nakba to “Israel’s birth.” There are some Israeli Arabs who may see Israel’s birth as a catastrophe. But the reference in almost any Israeli Arab’s mind refers to the disaster visited upon their uprooted society and villages by the War of Independence. 700,000 were sent into exile in this tragic event–one that rivals the Spanish exile of its Jewish community in 1492 or the Roman conquest of Palestine in 135 CE during which many inhabitants were exiled. It is this displacement that is their tragedy.

One may argue that the displacement and creation of the new state go hand in hand so that the two are interchangeable. Benny Morris and perhaps even David Ben Gurion may’ve believed this to be the case. But not even every Zionist of the era agreed. And I do not accept this and strongly believe Bronner should’ve been more precise in his discussion of the issue.

Polls show that most Israeli Arabs are neither revoluntaries nor anti-Zionist in their outlook. But they are a deeply aggrieved minority. The crime for them is not Israel’s creation, but the displacement and injustice done to them in the process.

That is why I believe that Bronner’s emphasis on the irreconcilable divide between Jew and Arab in Israel is misplaced. Yes, the divide is there and it is great. But by portraying Israeli Arab atttiudes as more fundamental and radical than they perhaps are, Bronner has set up the conflict to be intractable & unresolvable, which I don’t believe is the case.

Most [Israeli Jews] say that…an end to its Jewish identify means an end to Israel…

Again, there is imprecision here that should be amplified. What this attitude really connotes is that an end to Jewish domination of the state would mean an end to Israel as a Jewish state. Certainly there is no reason why having A (as opposed to “the”) Jewish identity in Israel means the end of the state. There might also be a recognition of An Arab identity in the state as well. So that two ethnic, religious identities could be enshrined in the nation’s fabric. This would certainly NOT entail “an end to Israel.”

What Bronner has done here is accept a certain nationalist Israeli Jewish notion without examining the assumptions behind it to determine whether there is ground for compromise sometime in the future.

…A majority of Jews, polls show, favor a transfer of Arabs out of Israel as part of a two-state solution…Arabs here reject that idea partly because they prefer the certainty of an imperfect Israeli democracy to whatever system may evolve in a shaky Palestinian state.

I am glad Bronner added the word “partly” to this passage, but even here I think he has missed the key point for Arabs. Certainly in a practical sense transfer would be economically disastrous for them. But more importantly, they are citizens of the state and their presence and that of their ancestors predates that of most of the current Jewish inhabitants. So most Arabs say: “Why should I be forced to leave this place? It is just as much mine as the Jews’. They have no greater claim to it than I.” Pride and rootedness in the land are far more important motivators for them in opposing transfer than any concern about standard of living should they be forced to leave.

In a 10-minute interview accompanying this piece, Bronner also made a statement that lacks sufficient nuance:

For the vast majority of Israeli Jews it [a multi-ethnic state of "all its citizens"] is a non-starter and a very threatening thought because they’re here to be part of the Jewish state. They say: “Look, there are twenty-some Arab states and with any luck there will be a Palestinian state. And if you need to be in an Arab state to express your Arab national identity choose another one, not this one.

Here Bronner has done a good job of channeling a certain Israeli nationalist perspective on the necessity of retaining Jewish dominance within the State of Israel. But what he hasn’t done is allow for the transformation of such attitudes over time. Look at the racial attitudes of white America toward African-Americans before 1954. There was an equivalent deep divide in society. But over time and thanks to the leadership of African-Americans like Martin Luther King and politicians like Lyndon Johnson, many of the barriers have fallen. Admittedly, Israeli relations between Jews and Arabs have potentially even more complexity than those between whites and blacks. But the key consideration is that racial hostility gradually diminished. Integration gradually decreased. With good will, leadership and compromise, this can happen in Israel too.

Can anyone now imagine an Arab running for president or prime minister of Israel? Perhaps not. But it will happen as surely as Barack Obama is now running for president. Time heals wounds as long as people really attempt to grapple with the issues that divide them. In my heart of hearts, I believe that they, and Israel, will find a way to realize the deepest aspirations of Arab and Jew within Israel.

It will not happen overnight. It will not happen easily. But for Israel to realize the full meaning of its democratic nature and its Declaration of Independence, developments must gradually move toward Israel becoming a state of all its citizens. Otherwise, Israel will be an ethnocracy with truncated rights for its Arab minority. This redefined Israeli state does not mean that the country will become Arab or that Jews or Judaism will no longer be fundamental to the identity of this state. There must be a way to also acknowledge that Arabs deserve parity in this process. That means that Judaism will no longer dominate; will no longer be considered superior. But the difference between being respected and being dominant is significant. Perhaps most Israeli Jews now do not accept the possibility that this will happen. But over time, I am convinced they will.

tags After 60 Years Arabs in Israel Are Outsiders, ethan bronner, ethnocracy, israeli-democracy, james bennet

It’s starting to feel a little like kicking a man when he’s down in making fun of the Bush Administration’s cluelessness in pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace. But I just had to do it given this utterly banal comment by Stephen Hadley featured in an AP interview published in Haaretz:

“This did not seem the time for a big, high-level, three-way event,” Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters. “It just doesn’t feel right as the best way to advance the negotiation.”

Clearly, the reason he won’t be meeting together with Abbas and Olmert is that the two sides have made little or no progress and so such a meeting wouldn’t be productive for Bush. But this also concedes that Bush, in refusing to get them together, either has no interest or ability to prod the sides to come up with new, creative proposals to bridge their divide. The way policymakers talk about issues indicates how well they control their agenda and neither Hadley nor Bush have the least control of these negotiations. Otherwise, Hadley wouldn’t say something as lame as what he said above.

“It’s both symbolic and substantive,” Hadley said of Bush’s trip…

But what it mostly is is useless.

The White House decision for the president to see Abbas only while in Egypt, and not on another visit to the Palestinian territories, raised eyebrows with Palestinians - especially given the lavish attention being paid to Israel’s celebration.

“We are, in some sense, all over this process, both in Israel and in terms of the West Bank,” Hadley said. “And I think it just made sense in terms of the president’s scheduling and given the messages and the themes we wanted to strike, this seemed to be a good way to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish with the trip.”

In WHICH SENSE, precisely, are they “all over this process?” If they were all over it, they’d have produced results. Abbas complained bitterly a few days ago that no progress has been made, while Israel has announced new building plans around East Jerusalem. It is a truth almost universally accepted that these negotiations are on a slow boat to nowhere. But then I haven’t told you anything you didn’t already know. It’s just more of the same old Bush lies and wish-fulfilling fantasy-delusion.

So happy 60th Israel, our clown prince is on the way to join you in celebrating while the Titanic (that is, the peace process) lists heavily to starboard taking on water.

tags bush mideast trip, Bush wont hold three-way meet during Mideast visit, haaretz, no joint abbas olmert meeting

For those who don't know, gazlan in Hebrew means 'robber.' So did he or didn't he? Did Ehud take wads of cash from Long Island investor and rabbi, Morris "Moshe" Talansky, when the former was mayor of Jerusalem? The NY Post reports a potential bombshell story claiming that Talansky is singing to Israeli detectives as I write this: A Long Island mogul is at the center of a sensational bribery scandal that could bring down embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, The Post has learned. Millionaire financier Morris Talansky - who runs an investment firm out of his home in Woodmere - allegedly passed money to Olmert while the politician was mayor of Jerusalem in the '90s, sources ...

Bernard Avishai has written a compelling blog post in which he practically beseeches the heavens to deny Bibi Netanyahu the next prime ministership should Ehud Olmert resign. The latter has been questioned by police about a new bribery allegation that many in the press claim is more serious than the previous corruption charges levelled against Olmert (at least three that I recall). Though Olmert has more political lives than a cat, even cats have to die sometime. And many journalists believe this might be Olmert's last life and hurrah. Which is good and bad as Avishai notes: FIRST, THE BAD...Waiting in the wings...is the worst government imaginable, a Bibi Netanyahu coalition of Likud’s hardest-liners, back-to-the-Land-of-Israel cultists, ultraOrthodox ...

In the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright affair, a tragedy of sorts is playing itself out before our eyes. We have the first African-American presidential candidate in American history who has a serious chance of capturing the nomination of his party and the presidency itself. Because of this, there is an underlying nervousness among Americans about what it might mean. This nervousness may be in the process of turning into a backlash much like the one that confronted Martin Luther King is his civil rights struggle in the 1960s and ended with his assassination. There are white people who don't want a Black man to lead them. They won't say that, of course. To admit this would generate ...

I opened the front page of yesterday's N.Y. Times Magazine and was greeted by a two page spread promoting Israeli tourism and the 60th anniversary celebration. It was a bit of a shocker. Here's the copy: You'll love Israel from the first "Shalom." Who can say "Shalom" more eloquently than Maya Weiser? She found her first love--dance--when she was six. She became a member of the Bat Sheva Dance Company, performing in the beautiful Susanne Lelall Center in Tel Aviv, and at New York's Lincoln Center. Recently she found a second love--saving the animals--so she is studying animal science ...

Some of you may know that the English newspaper, The Guardian, is expanding its coverage of the U.S. It's website has a global reach and now has a significant portion of its readers here in this country. As part of this expansion, Comment is Free, the Guardian's daily blog about politics and international affairs will be adding a U.S. section come June. The Washington DC editor asked me if I would contribute a weekly column to CiF. This is really a dream come true for me. When you first start blogging as I did in 2003, you sometimes feel like you're shouting down a dark hole and all you hear in reply is your own ...