Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘israeli-politics’

Bibitours: Overseas Trips Involved 30 Knesset Ethics Violations

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011
netanyahu

Bibi and Sara Netanyahu a taste for the high-life and traveling first-class

I’ve now watched three of Raviv Drucker’s video reports on the budding Bibitours scandal (this is the entire list of Drucker stories on the affair–Hebrew only) and plan to summarize some of it here.  Perhaps the motto of this scandal should be this statement Bibi made on one of his overseas trips: “I never work at the expense ["on the account of" in Hebrew] of the State, I work on behalf of [on account of] the State.”  Raviv Drucker’s expose proves otherwise.

In a single two year period (1999-2001), Bibi earned $2-million from speakers fees.  This enabled him to move on up to a luxurious Herzliya villa and generally live in the style to which he became accustomed.

Between 1999-2008 Bibi Netanyah and his family took scores of overseas trips which were paid for, at least in part, by private individuals or Jewish advocacy groups.  There are explicit ethics rules for ministers and Knesset members to follow in financing these trips.  He took scores of such trips and among them Drucker found at least 30 violations of the guidelines.

A member must receive permission to take such trips and report who will be funding them.  The trips must be solely for State-related business.  He must also report who, if anyone, is joining him and who is funding their trip.  In some cases, Bibi got proper permission, in some he didn’t.  In some cases, he got permission for himself but not for his wife and family.  In such cases, the member is supposed to pay out of his own pocket for unapproved family members.  On no account, may private individuals or organizations pay for the expenses of someone who hasn’t been approved.  This happened multiple times.  Further, the expenses of someone who hasn’t been approved are subject to tax as Bibi received a personal benefit from the individual or group.  I strongly doubt he paid any such tax.

In a number of cases, Friends of the IDF was listed as the organization paying for a trip when in fact it only paid for part of the trip (the remainder paid for by private donors): another ethics violation.  In one case the same group was listed as his sponsor but he did no events on its behalf.  In some instances, Bibi received approval for a trip from the Knesset, but included a family vacation funded by the private individual or group.  Another violation.  On some trips, Bibi did some State business while also cultivating and soliciting political donors: another violation.  Though it would be illegal here, imagine Barack Obama jetting to Paris in Air Force One to solicit campaign donations from a French CEO for his next political campaign.

Sara Netanyahu was noted for conducting her “official State business” on some of these junkets in Brioni boutiques.  After the Knesset refused to approve his wife joining him on a trip to London, billionaire Marc Belzberg (a crony of Michael Milken from the days Drexel Burnham who has been in hot water with federal regulators in the past), paid for Mrs. Netanyahu.  Friends of the IDF was supposed to be paying Bibi’s way.  They only paid a small portion of the expense.  Netanyahu needed Knesset approval for Belzberg to pay for the trip, but didn’t bother to get it.

Bibi once informed the Knesset that a visit to Brussels would be paid for by the Harvard Club.  It wasn’t (another violation).  Instead, his $20,000 fee was paid for by a Jewish high tech entrepreneur, Benjamin Vanoudenhove.  Netanyahu stayed at a castle owned by a prince who was Vanoudenhove’s business partner.  The partners at the time were seeking Israeli business investments which Bibi no doubt expedited for them.

A number of the donors who paid for Bibi’s trips benefitted in a material way from their relationship with Bibi.  In one case, Larry Mizel, a billionaire Colorado home builder asked for a private dinner with the Israeli leader.  He was informed that the price for the dinner was paying for Bibi’s trip, which Mizel dutifully did.  The quid pro quo?  Mizel’s company, MDC received a State license to explore for natural gas near Hadera a few months after the prime minister’s trip.  You can imagine what was discussed at dinner that night.

Arnon Milchan, chairman of the New Regency film company paid for one of Bibi’s New York trips. Another veteran of the Milken junk bond mill at Drexel was Sig Zises, who funded another of Bibi’s stays in the Goldeneh (in more ways than one) Medineh.

Corporate donors gave Bibi virtual free rein: corporate jets, stays at luxurious hotels (the Connaught in London and the Mark in Manhattan averaging $2,500 per night), dinners at the finest restaurants, chauffeured cars, shopping at luxury boutiques, etc.  In a number of cases, his hosts made complex arrangements for special trips to cater to the Netanyahus whims, which the latter cancelled at the last-minute.  There were tickets for top London shows, trips for the Netanyahu children to see the latest Harry Potter movie.

In at least one case, two different U.S. Jewish charities, Friends of the Ashdod Medical Center and the Jewish Heritage Foundation, each paid for the same plane ticket.  If this sort of double-dipping sounds familiar it’s because Ehud Olmert did this routinely as part of a scandal that also involved corrupt travel practices abetted by Rishon Tours, his own travel agency.

The following is my own contribution to research on Bibi’s self-interested double-dealing: a reader reports that during the 2000-01 academic year Bibi delivered two Millenium lectures (see pg. 5) at the Columbia University School of Business.  My source reports that billionaire Orthodox pro-Israel donor, Ira Rennert paid the fees for Bibi’s lectures which were in the range of $50,000 each.  I haven’t been able to determine who paid for Bibi’s airfare and hotel on these trips. I have little doubt it was Rennert, which would put this deeply controversial business figure into the mix.  Rennert owns a palatial Versailles-sized mansion on the Long Island shore and his companies are known for polluting pristine Latin American rain forest and causing cancer in Ecuadorean peasant women (among other achievements).

Drucker discovered that a Spencer Partrich (Michigan and Florida resident and noted real estate developer) offered Bibi use of his corporate jet on numerous occasions and that the former employed at least three of Bibi’s aides while they were working for Bibi.  In Britain, Chaim “Poju” Zabludowiczthe chair of Bicom, the UK version of Aipac, funded Bibi’s trips as did a Manchester Jew named Joshua Rowe.  Zabludowicz, a major Tory Party donor, also funded the similarly high-flying travels of Adam Werrity, the infamous best friend of former UK defense minister Liam Fox.  Werrity traveled the world seeking to foster regime change in Iran.

Donors to Bibi’s political campaigns are permitted to give only $8,000 per person.  But a number have given two or three times that much.  One of these is Moshe Ronen, vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, who gave $24,000 for the last campaign.  A donor may do this legally by enlisting family and business colleagues to donate.  We call it bundling here.  But it is illegal to reimburse the donor for the contribution.  Drucker believes this may’ve happened in the case of some of these contributions.

Several donors who gave to support Bibi’s election bids aren’t listed in the State Controller’s public report, which means the campaign didn’t report the gift properly.  In at least one case a donor gave six times as much as the donation listed by the Controller.

Way back in 1999, Larry Cohler Esses reported on the ways in which Israeli politicians got around then new Israeli campaign finance law which prohibit foreign citizens from supporting Israeli election campaigns.  Israeli politicians seeking to help American Jews skirt the law establish their own charities, which then invite them to address their U.S. affiliates.  Donations are supposed to support the charity’s work in Israel.  Often they do.  Sometimes they disappear somewhere between Brooklyn and Tel Aviv.  The Israeli leaders also use these events to cultivate and prospect for new political donors. And the fundraisers for the Israeli charity often double as political fundraisers.

This is precisely the route that “Rabbi” Morris Talansky took as a fundraiser for an Israeli hospital while also being Ehud Olmert’s chief U.S. bag man.  Similarly, Netanyahu has his own U.S. political fixer, Zeev Rubinstein.  Rubinstein makes all the arrangements for the family’s visits to America and often brokers Bibi’s time for those seeking to see him.  At a dinner whose guests included Rubinstein, Sheldon Adelson and Bibi, the fixer arranged for a fundraising job with Taglit/Birthright, Adleson’s vanity charity project.

For his trouble, Bibi is suing Channel 10 for $800,000 for libelling him and seeking to close the station for non-payment of royalties and licensing fees to the State–unless it fires Drucker.  All this after Ronald Lauder, a part owner of Channel 10, compelled the station to issue an apology to Sheldon Adelson for a documentary it ran about his questionable business practices.  That’s press freedom-Israel style.

Barak: In the Land of Self-Regard

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011
ehud barak splits labor

Caption: 'Independence' Road sign: 'Israeli, pay attention, if you got here, you made a mistake.'
Labor to Barak: wipe that silly smile off your face and stop waving that middle finger at me.

Ehud Barak’s self-regard knows no bounds.  But one thing about him is endlessly amusing: he has no sense of irony.  Take this wonderful statement from the Jerusalem Post:

Barak said that the faction’s agenda will be “first of all the state, then the party, then the media, and only then ourselves.” He vowed that he and Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, Simhon, Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Orit Noked, and Wilf would “do what’s best and what’s right for Israel.”

Let’s reverse that: first of all for Barak, then for his media stenographers, then the State.  Notice I left out Party because he has none.  He is a party of one, the Party of Self-Regard.

Barak even dissed his former ally Binyamin Ben Eliezer, who resigned today as trade minister rather than continue to play Barak’s game by remaining in the ruling coalition.  Barak, according to Gideon Levy, called the former Israeli general, “post Zionist.”  Imagine, Ehud’s playing the Im Tirzu game.  He talks like Meir Rotter spitting leftists from his mouth like broken teeth.

I don’t know what Fuad is planning.  There can’t be much remaining of the Labor Party’s carcass after the vultures pick it clean.  But at least he did the principled thing and gave up his ministerial portfolio when he saw the handwriting on the wall.  More than you can say for the other guy.

Bibi gave me another laugh when he claimed that Ehud’s split from Labor strengthens his coalition.  I love it when a politician tries to aggrandize hisself and in the process disproves the very point he’s trying to make:

“The government has grown much stronger today, in its governance, in its stability — and this is important for Israel. The whole world knows, and the Palestinians know, that this government will be around for the next few years and that it is with this government that they should negotiate for peace.”

Another deluded Israeli pol who thinks that his short political shelf life will outlast Palestinian steadfastness and suffering.  Bibi himself admits he will be around for another few years (at most hopefully) and in effect tells the Palestinians to outlast him.  Which they will.  There is only one thing that ends suffering: justice.  Not even death ends suffering when a nation is the one doing the suffering.  Because the suffering is transferred from one generation to the next.  By comparison, the life of an Israeli politician is but the wink of an eye.

Yediot Publishes List of Bibi’s Campaign Donor Prospects, ‘Bibi’s Foreign Legion’

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

98% of the money donated to Bibi Netanyahu for his 2007 Likud primary campaign came from abroad.  Much of that from the U.S.  Yediot has published (this is a Hebrew excerpt from a print-only investigative piece; English summary here) a prospect-list written in Bibi’s own hand which notes the potential donor names.  What I don’t have (and would love an Israeli reader to provide) is an actual list of the donors and how much they gave, if such a thing exists.

The prospect list is eye-opening.  It divides donors into four categories.  The only ones that really concern us are 1 and 2 since few gifts came from any other group.  Here are the names by group (I’ve only included names with which I’m familiar–if you see another name on the list which is significant and I should’ve included let me know, and why):

Group 1

Sheldon Adelson
Ronald Perelman
Steve Wynn
Ron Lauder
Ira Rennert
Arnon Milchan
Motti Ganz

Group 2

Rupert Murdoch
Thomas Lee
Sumner Redstone
Robert Kraft

Yediot cynically, but aptly calls this process Bibi’s “campaign fundraising industry” and the members of the list his “foreign legion.”  This recalls the massive amounts of corporate and foreign money the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling into U.S. Congressional races thanks to our craven corporatist Supreme Court.

Also interesting are the names of the moguls Bibi downgraded as unlikely to give, which include:

David Geffen
Sam Zell
Jimmy Tisch
Leonard Lauder
Ace Greenberg
Haim Saban
Henry Kravis
Les Wexner
Steve Ballmer
Lila Safra
Carl Icahn
Eli Broad
Micki Arison
Edgar Bronfman
Donald Trump
Mort Zuckerman
Zeev Wolfson

Can we say they exhibited a modicum of due and proper caution before investing with Bibi?

Grossman: Free Shalit, Free Israel from Its Hamas Shibboleths

Thursday, July 8th, 2010
david grossman

David Grossman (Ben Heine)

David Grossman is a perfect example of an artist who has a better political mind than the leaders of his nation.  In a column he wrote for Haaretz, he showed that he has a far more deft strategic approach than anyone in Israeli politics today.  So many of Israel’s decent politicians (Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Avrum Burg and Yossi Beilin to name a few) have left the field to the true incompetents and worse; that it’s not hard to be head and shoulders above this lot.  As Zeev Sternhell wrote so cogently in today’s Haaretz:

Peres the deserter [of Labor], who became president…taught the average Israeli not only that politics is a realm to avoid if you want to save your soul, but that political life is nothing but a web of fraud – without ideology, principles and truth.

But Grossman’s column is truly forthright and clear-thinking.  Instead of merely negotiating for Gilad Shalit’s release, he says, let’s think bigger and try to resolve the entire Gaza mess by demanding a total end of terror (including rocket) attacks from Gaza in return for an end to the siege and the release of Shalit.  There are of course two reasons this will never happen.  First, it is entirely too candid and reasonable an assessment and Israeli politics these days shuns reason and candor like the plague.  Second, such a negotiation would involve a tacit recognition of Hamas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinians.  One of the fundamental components of Israeli policy is that Hamas may never, ever be viewed as legitimate or acceptable for any purpose.  It matters little that this belief flies in the face of Palestinian reality.  Much of Israeli policy (cf. Iran) flies in the face of reality.

Grossman notes a particularly telling result of the Mavi Marmara fiasco as representative of similar failures of Israeli policy:

For years Israel has presented an inflexible, tight-fisted and unilateral position. It has increasingly flexed its muscles and declared that it will not concede an inch until suddenly, sometimes within a day, the situation is completely reversed. The ground − or the sea − shifts under its feet, and Israel is forced to concede totally, far more than it would have conceded in negotiations ‏(and of course then it also receives a smaller return for its concessions‏).And even in the painful and frustrating issue of Gilad Shalit it looks as though things are heading that way. But maybe this time, with both sides trapped in their positions and no solution on the horizon, we will dare to expand our point of view, to release ourselves from the usual conditions and determine the momentum and its scale on our own initiative ‏(ha, a forgotten word!‏).

Here is where Grossman proves his strategic thinking by jettisoning conventional Israeli attitudes toward Hamas and posing an alternate take on what could happen if Israel pursues his course of action:

Perhaps − as in the siege of Gaza − it will turn out that for years we have been fed clichés that do not conform to all the nuances and possibilities of the situation. And perhaps it will turn out that negotiations with Hamas toward some kind of agreement will actually spur the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to hasten the peace process with Israel. And perhaps there will be a dynamic that will set into motion a process of reconciliation between the two mutually hostile parts of the Palestinian people, a process without which no stable peace agreement will be achieved, not even with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his people.

Of course, the premise of the last sentence presumes that this is what the Netanyahu government wants–a stable peace agreement.  That is highly debatable.  Though one could say that it is likely this is what most Israelis want even if the leaders they choose do not.

In a Haaretz editorial which expanded on Grossman’s themes, the editorial writer revealed one of those rare instances in which the IDF’s senior leadership actually came up with an excellent strategic challenge which could have broken the Israel-Hamas logjam:

A few days after the [Shalit] abduction and the failure…to locate and rescue the soldier, astute voices from the top ranks of the Israel Defense Forces reached the conclusion that if Shalit was to be brought back, a new policy was necessary. These voices, which apparently reflected the position of GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant and then chief of staff Dan Halutz, sought to recognize the reality that had been created in Gaza following the Hamas victory in the PA elections four months earlier, and the establishment of the Ismail Haniyeh government (Hamas’ violent takeover of the Strip only took place in June 2007 ).

The IDF wanted to pose the following option to Hamas: Preserve your rule of power or continue your violent struggle against Israel. A proposal to seek a broad agreement on Israel-Hamas relations was drafted – which was to include a cease-fire, an end to terrorist attacks and the launching of Qassam rockets, an end to efforts to acquire more weapons for use against Israel and the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. A report on this attitude held by the IDF, published by Haaretz, angered then-prime minister Ehud Olmert, who opposed a prisoner exchange deal. He shelved the idea and subsequently rejected similar ones raised during Operation Cast Lead.

Thank you, Ehud Olmert, who seems never to have missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Returning to Grossman’s column, here is more wisdom from Israel’s literary seer:

…For several years Israel has been trapped in a paralysis that is gradually slowing it down, to the point where anyone with eyes in his head identifies apathy and helplessness and even a dwindling of the healthy life instinct. That is the real danger to Israel, and it is far more destructive than all the dangers of Hamas.

…The traditional tendency of Israeli leaders to find reasons and excuses for inactivity, and their inability to distinguish between real and imagined problems and real and imagined dangers, cause Israel to say an absolute and sweeping “no” to all of reality, and to the very small opportunities that crop up occasionally. This stubborn refusal is already beyond our means. In simple terms of survival we cannot afford it. And what else has to happen to shake us up and lift the siege that we have been imposing on ourselves for so many years?

If only Grossman were prime minister instead of the sorry soul who currently occupies that office.  In a way, it’s the story of Zionism writ large.  It was always the deep, daring moral thinkers (Ahad Ha-Am, Buber, Magnes, Yeshaia Leibowitz), and not necessarily the political hondlers (Ben Gurion, Peres, etc.), who had the best, most sweeping vision about how to realize the Zionist dream in a way that met the “other” half way.  But these ‘luftmenschen‘ were tactically outmaneuvered by the pols, who left the former in the dust to the detriment of Israel.

So it will be again with Grossman’s wise words.  They will go forth into the ether and be absorbed by a few of us and then disappear.  They will be the still, small voice that no one particularly wants to hear.

A final word in closing.  Not everything in this essay is praiseworthy.  Like most Israeli liberals, Grossman is held back by a demonizing attitude toward Hamas and by an inability to free himself from certain immovable liberal Zionist obstacles like the Right of Return.  But I’ll take it as a bold expression of a major Israeli voice which deserves amplification.

Thanks to Jerry Haber for pointing me to Grossman’s essay.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Olmert’s ‘Realignment’ Roadshow Comes (to Washington) and Goes

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006
bush welcomes olmertBush rolls out red carpet for Olmert (photo: Kimberlee Hewitt/Whitehouse.gov)

Ehud Olmert came to Washington with high hopes for Bush Administration embrace of his convergence (now called “realignment”) plan to unilaterally set Israel’s international borders and thereby swallow up considerable territory beyond the internationally-recognized Green Line. What did he come away with? Well, he came away with some positive rhetoric from the president describing the Olmert plan as “bold.” The former also declared that once all other options were exhausted perhaps it might be appropriate to pursue a unilateral approach. The NY Times characterized Olmert’s reception in DC as 2 Cheers for Olmert. I’d call it 1 /2 cheers.

And Bush’s remarks are noteworthy for what they do not do. They do not endorse Israel’s draconian policy of isolating the Palestinians and drawing an economic-security cordon around Gaza. They do not endorse setting of unilateral borders–at least for the foreseeable future. They do not endorse Olmert’s refusal to negotiate seriously with Mahmoud Abbas–though hypocritical U.S. officials revealed privately that they do not hold much hope for Abbas as a serious partner:

…Senior American officials have few expectations that Mr. Abbas can deliver, so there is an element of hypocrisy on both sides.

Olmert lied when he told the U.S. Congress and President Bush that he too wanted to negotiate with Mr. Abbas (talk maybe, negotiate never). He wants nothing of the sort. He does want us to BELIEVE that he wants to negotiate with him. That’s why he said:

“We will make a genuine effort to negotiate with the Palestinian side,” and “we accept the sincerity of Mahmoud Abbas.”

That sounds like a good beginning until you read the next paragraph of the story:

“We hope he will have the power to be able to meet the requirements necessary for negotiations between us and the Palestinians.”

Requirements? Abbas has said time and again that he’s ready for negotiations right now with Israel. So Israel has to drive a wedge into its enemy’s readiness and it does so by introducing requirements, better known as conditions. I read yesterday (can’t remember the source) that Israel’s primary condition is that Abbas disarm all the Palestinian militant groups and end Palestinian terror. This of course is precisely the type of deabreaker that Israel needs in this circumstance. It’s not a dealbreaker in the sense that Abbas wouldn’t wish to do this. It’s a dealbreaker in the sense that he doesn’t have the physical means (neither troops, nor weapons, nor infrastructure) to do it.

In fact, one could credibly argue that if in the current strife besetting Gaza (a senior Fatah-affiliated security commander was assassinated by a car bomb yesterday and several others have been critically wounded in recent similar attacks) Hamas assumes uniform control of security there–that this might be a good thing. For Hamas can do what Abbas seemingly cannot. It can control both its own militants and have significant tempering influence over Islamic Jihad. If it can take security matters away from the irreparably splintered and criminal Fatah, then perhaps Israel would finally find a Palestinian partner who can deliver.

Of course, Israel still has an ‘out’ to avoid negotiation with Hamas since it hasn’t yet bended its knee and sung Hatikvah (that’s Tom Friedman’s locution for describing Israel’s demands that Hamas recognize Israel and renounce terror before it will sit down at the negotiating table).

David Makofsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Peace (a pro-Israel think tank loosely affiliated with Aipac) also unintentionally reveals the hypocrisy of Olmert’s stance toward Abbas:

The Palestinians, through Mr. Abbas, must at least be “given a voice and even a vote” in the Israeli withdrawal plan, Mr. Makovsky said, “but not a veto.”

A vote but not a veto. Interesting. If Israel has one vote and Abbas has one vote then one would think that this would mean stalemate. But not according to Makofsky, because Abbas’s vote doesn’t really count–Israel can essentially ignore his opposition. So of what value is his vote to begin with?

I just love one of Israel’s reasons for not negotiating with the Palestinians. If they do so and get into the nitty gritty of a Camp David style process and it fails (as the Clinton efforts did), then we may have another intifada. Here’s how the Times described the thinking:

…Both the Americans and the Israelis are concerned about getting deep into negotiations, on final-status issues like Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees, that are unlikely to succeed, possibly prompting another round of violence like the intifada, or uprising, that followed the failure of President Clinton’s peace efforts in 2000.

So Israel says “we won’t negotiate at all because if we did we might fail and stir up more violence.” This is idiotic and utterly self-serving because the difference between current levels of violence and death and a full-blown intifada is but a matter of degrees. It’s the difference between a warm war and a raging one. Israel doesn’t want to negotiate because it knows it will never readily give the Palestinians anything that will satisfy them. So if it did sit down and made such a bad-faith offer, both the Palestinians and the rest of the world would see Israel’s two-facedness and exert pressure on it to compromise further. This is what Israel wants to avoid at all costs. Essentially, it wants to stack the deck before the card game even begins.

All I can say is that thank God Olmert’s roadshow is over and he’s back on a plane headed home. We have enough hypocrisy and pandering right here in our own Congress and Administration without taking on the added burden of Olmert’s.

Ariga.com on Kadima’s ‘Shallow’ Electoral Support

Thursday, March 9th, 2006
Robert RosenbergRobert Rosenberg (photo: ariga.com)

Polling today at 37 seats, it seems doubtful that anyone can dent Kadima’s lead in the three weeks remaining before Israeli elections. My heart is with Amir Peretz and Labor. But they’re holding steady at 20 seats, a small improvement over their current representation. Today’s Robert Rosenberg column at Ariga.com analyzes Kadima’s overwhelming, but shallow support:

Still, there is something mysterious about these elections, which are unprecedented in Israel in the way a new self-declared Centrist party has appeared out of nowhere to grab not only the center of the political map but parts of the Right and Left. Every other centrist party that appeared on the eve of elections either faded by the time the vote came around or broke up within weeks of the elections. Kadima is not yet fading, but there does not seem to be any gravity holding its membership together other than a tautological conviction that together they deserve being the ruling party by virtue of the fact that they are the ruling party. That a third of the electorate has accepted that at face value is not a sign of Olmert’s popularity, but more likely tied to the strange circumstances of Ariel Sharon and Israeli society’s need for some kind of cathartic moment — a state funeral — that would once and for all might lay the ‘Sharon legacy’ to rest.

I think that italicized passage is very insightful analysis and it doesn’t bode well for Kadima as a long-term player on the Israeli political scene (though it still will probably win the next election).

Israel and U.S. Up to Old Meddlesome Tricks Regarding Palestinian Politics

Tuesday, February 14th, 2006

Israel has a long and honored tradition of gross meddling in Palestinian politics in order to get the kinds of outcome it prefers. A few decades ago it was the Village Leagues, which were supposed to be West Bank toady tribal elders doing Israel’s bidding. Then Israel helped lay the groundwork for Hamas in a pathetic attempt to undercut Fatah support among Palestinians. Those ideas worked swimmingly as we now can see with Hamas controlling Palestinian government.

Kissinger and PinochetCondi pulling a Kissinger on Hamas? (photo: George Washington University-National Security Archive)

The U.S. too has a proud and miserable record of meddling in the internal affairs of foreign governments: Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, El Salvador. We have a long and dishonorable tradition of trying to disrupt, topple or otherwise interfere with any government we didn’t like. Potential future candidates for such interference might now be Bolivia or Brazil where we officially “detest” the “leftists” in power.

So isn’t it reassuring that both Israel and the U.S. are going to team up to bring the new Hamas government to its knees. How do they plan to do that?

The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.

….The United States and Israel say Palestinian life will only get harder if Hamas does not meet those three demands.

This is quite humorous since the PA is essentially bankrupt. How do you further starve a nation that is essentially already starving? How do you make Palestinian life that is already essentially unbearable and prison-like even more so? And do we really think that the Palestinians will not see through this charade and place blame where it belongs? Not on Hamas, but on us and the Israelis?

The U.S. has committed approximately $200-million to the PA while Israel contributes several hundred million per year according to international agreement. Do the U.S. and Israel really believe that the Arab governments, Russia and France (who’ve both indicated a willingness to buck the U.S. in its effort to isolate Hamas) wouldn’t step in and fill that gap? Personally, I think Hamas would look mighty good as a David fighting against the U.S.-Israel Goliath in that struggle. They’re the scrappy underdogs fighting against all odds on behalf of their people. Makes for a great story in the world media.

They say Hamas will be given a choice: recognize Israel’s right to exist, forswear violence and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements — as called for by the United Nations and the West — or face isolation and collapse.

So get this, we give Hamas an ultimatum–do our bidding or begone. That’s also going to go over awfully well in the world community. The U.S. has been doing nothing but bullying in the Middle East since it invaded Iraq and now we want to start bullying Hamas. I’d say this policy should work about as well as our Iraq policy has worked over the past few years–that is to say, hardly at all.

And I say this as someone who does not support Hamas. But I can see this putative policy as a train wreck waiting to happen. It’s the fruit of some hyperactive spook-like imagination. I’m sorry to say that the Times indicates this plan is being discussed “at the highest levels of the State Department and the Israeli government.” That is to say, Condi Rice is behind this thing. Hard to believe a woman that smart (well, at least about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) can be so dumb as to embrace this turkey.

The United States and the European Union in particular want any failure of Hamas in leadership to be judged as Hamas’s failure, not one caused by Israel and the West.

Well, gee after this article that shouldn’t be difficult to pull off, should it?

The U.S.-Israeli plan relies on Mahmoud Abbas to implement it since he’d be the one to declare Hamas’ government null and void and call new elections. What we’re not relying on is the fact that Abbas will not want to see himself as a willing accomplice to this ham-handed manipulation. He’d be smart to resign too rather than cooperate with such meddling in his own nation’s politics.

It is essential that the European Union and Russia step in and tell Condi she’s losing her mind on this one. And tell her if she insists on going forward that they will oppose her and break up what consensus has been built up regarding the international community’s response to Hamas. In that sense, the recent French-Russian breakaway is a good thing. If Russia (a government I normally detest) can create some political movement in Hamas’ positions and France supports these efforts, then the U.S. and Israel will be left holding the bag.

The Times article quotes this upbeat assessment from a Hamas legislator:

Mr. Asaad laughed and added: “First, I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. But there is no way to retreat now. It’s not possible for the U.S. and the world to turn its back on an elected democracy.”

Ah, but we did just that in Chile and we can do the same in Palestine given half a chance.

Hebron Settler Militants Abuse Children for Political Gain

Sunday, January 22nd, 2006
hebron settler children at demonstrationHebron settler children: “Karadi–shoot me!” (photo: Gil Yochanan)

I was surfing through Ynetnews for information about a post I’m writing about the upcoming Palestinian elections and this image and headline (Hebron children to police chief: Shoot us”) REALLY brought me up short. “WHOA,” I said. “This stuff is beyond the pale.”

In my last post about the Hebron melee I posted images of young settlers abusing Israeli police and Palestinian residents. I’d also seen images of the Gaza withdrawal in which children were manipulated to invoke pity and especially guilt within the Israeli public. But this goes all the way down to the gutter. Putting young children in front the the world media with signs saying “Karadi [the Israeli police chief]–Shoot Me!” Really. All I can do is echo Joseph Welch’s famous lines which finally turned the tables on Senator Joe McCarthy and eventually led to his political demise (in this passage he comes to the defense of a young lawyer accused by McCarthy of belonging to the National Lawyer’s Guild):

Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness…Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I’m a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me…

You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

…If there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good.

I couldn’t have put it any better myself. I have three young children. I believe strongly in my political principles. They have often been under attack just as the Hebron settlers feel themselves under attack. But I would never stoop to such narischkeit. It would demean me. It would demean my children. And perhaps worst of all, it would demean my cause. Why should anyone sympathize with adults who do such things to their children?

Finally, I note that Ynet has the good sense to protect the privacy of these poor children by masking their faces. But why didn’t their parents have the good sense not to parade them for public show in the first place?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE