When I pointed out that the foreign and economic policies on which Likud and Kadima would be hard to square unless one or the other party betrayed its principles, Dani and Siman insisted that the differences were negligible. So Kadima advocates cutting a deal with the Palestinians in which they’d receive nearly all the West Bank, whereas Likud promises that no such deal will be forthcoming. So Likud advocates tax cuts and a tight budget while Kadima’s program calls for a larger deficit and more government spending to stimulate the economy. When you get down to it, Dani and Siman insist, they’re really the same. Why this yearning for the country’s large parties to rule together? President Obama has been learning some lessons in recent weeks about the futility of seeking bipartisanship when the ideological differences between the parties are real. Haven’t Dani and Siman been reading the papers? Here are a few explanations. First, Dani may favor a deal with the Palestinians and Siman oppose one, but neither thinks that a deal is going to be forthcoming anyway, and neither really thinks that Bibi will turn one down if, by chance, one is offered. After all, governments that have advocated a deal have gotten cold feet each time one was in the cards, and governments that have opposed accommodation with the Palestinians have nevertheless signed agreements with them. Neither really trusts or likes the Palestinians, nor Bibi either. Second, neither really understands the differences in economic policy. Both like Bibi’s business-friendly rhetoric and his willingness to take on established interests like the unions and utility monopolies, but both vilify him for cutting pensions and welfare. Both complain that the state is wasteful but neither wants to give up social services. Both think say they want an economy that encourages diligence and initiative, but both want their jobs protected. Both think Israelis should work harder, but neither wants to give up their afternoon swims. Third, they’d be quite happy if a secular unity government put diplomacy and the economy to the side and spent a year or two eliminating subsidies to yeshivot, religious legislation, and forcing ultra-orthodox men to serve in the army. (Of course, the locker room conversation would be very different on Wednesday evenings, when the pool is open to men only and fills up with haredim). Bibi and Tzipi Livni shouldn’t be tempted into listening to Dani and Siman. As sincere as their desire for national unity might be, it’s totally unrealistic. A government that spent its time squaring the different policy circles of the Likud and Kadima would get nothing done. If Israel’s diplomatic and economic position were somehow stable, it might just stagnate under a unity government. But it’s not stable, and without action, Israel will deteriorate on both fronts. I dread a right-wing government, but better a right-wing government operating under the watchful eye of an opposition hoping to take power in the next election than a hermaphroditic creature that spends the next one to four years screwing itself. If Bibi’s right-wing government succeeds, it will last. If, as I suspect, it fails, then at least the people may learn something, and we’ll have an eager, hungry opposition pushing for early elections. Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The post Cold Feet–Why Israeli Voters Shouldn’t Get Their Fantasy Government appeared first on Jewcy.

Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party seems almost certain to become the country’s third largest parliamentary faction and, as such, a member of whatever ruling coalition the new prime minister forms. Lieberman is not new to the Knesset and he has held cabinet portfolios, but with between 15 and 20 parliamentarians in his faction, he will be far more powerful than he has ever been before. Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of Labor already granted Lieberman legitimacy by agreeing to sit in a government with him, but in the new government he will possess both legitimacy and power. Press reports about Lieberman have focused on his promise to require Israel’s Arab citizens to sign a loyalty oath in order to preserve their citizenship. Stripping citizens of their rights because of their political views and ethnic origin is manifestly anti-democratic, but that’s hardly where it ends. Lieberman wants to strip Israel’s Supreme Court of its powers of judicial review and create a separate constitutional court to review legislation—a court whose members would be elected. This politicization of the constitutional process would endanger the rights of all of Israel’s minorities—not just Arabs, but religious, ethnic, and ideological minorities as well. Lieberman’s platform stresses good and effective government and may not sound so bad to American ears—but his rhetoric shows him to play as loose with the term “democracy” as did the Communist regimes of the late twentieth century. And it’s important to listen to the rhetoric—the country needs a strong man to solve its problems, investigative journalists are public nuisances, and what’s important is not law and procedure but “getting things done.” Overshadowed by Lieberman’s burgeoning popularity is another disturbing development on the Israeli far right. Ha-Ihud Ha-Le’umi—the National Union slate, composed of a couple extreme national-religious factions and one far-right secular party, is the home of the unrepentant advocates of Greater Israel and messianic nationalism. But in the past even this group had the decency to recognize that the acolytes of Meir Kahane and his outlawed Kach party were untouchables who should not be granted legitimacy. Kahane and Kach were boycotted by the rest of the political spectrum, even the right, precisely because Kahane declared unashamedly that he opposed democracy and the rule of law. This year, Ha-Ihud Ha-Le’umi has brought Kahane’s successor, Baruch Marzel, into the fold. And Marzel hasn’t changed—he still advocates the anti-democratic policies of his political and spiritual teacher. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, realized the importance of making a clear statement about what political parties could and could not be legitimate partners in government. His rule was “bli Herut ve-Maki”—that Menachem Begin’s Herut party (because of Begin’s contempt for the rule of law in the country’s early years) and Maki, the Communist party (because of its lockstep alignment with the Soviet Union), were not legitimate coalition partners. The place where Ben-Gurion drew the line is debatable—Begin, for all his love of military trappings and his attempts to incite mobs against the Knesset, eventually proved himself to be a committed democrat, and the Mapam party, which Ben-Gurion accepted as a partner, was in the early 1950s also subservient to the Soviets. But he was right that it’s important for democratic leaders to refuse to grant legitimacy to parties and figures who display contempt for the basic rules of the democratic process—which include the rule of law and the equal rights of all citizens. On Wednesday morning, Israel’s leaders will face a challenge. Will they be prepared to draw a clear line and say bli Yisrael Beitenu ve- Ha-Ihud Ha-Le’umi? Frankly, the prospects don’t look good.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The post Drawing the Line appeared first on Jewcy.

The post Go Green! appeared first on Jewcy.

The post Biblical Bellylaughs appeared first on Jewcy.

Q: Why Magnus Arbuthnot! How unexpected to see you in South Jerusalem! What brings you here?

A: I have been sent by a respected and impartial NGO to investigate the carnage inflicted by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Q: Which NGO would that be?

A: An NGO that uses an ostensible human-rights agenda as camouflage for an anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic program.

Q: So you’ve been south. What did you see there?

A: Collateral damage.

Q: Collateral to what?

A: To Israel’s right to defend itself.

Q: And what else?

A: To courageous Palestinian resistance against Zionist imperialism.

Q: What targets were hit?

A: Homes, schools, hospitals, military installations, and firing positions.

Q: How do you tell one from the other?

A: If you are Palestinian, you don’t bother.

Q: And if you are Israeli?

A: You shoot anyway.

Q: Could you be more specific? If you are a Hamas guerilla fighter, what is a legitimate military target?

A: Every outpost of Zionist imperialism.

Q: And what is an illegitimate civilian target?

A: Come again?

Q: The Israelis bombed homes and schools containing non-combatant men, women, and children.

A: They were being used as firing positions and endangering Israeli forces.

Q: How were they being used?

A: Cynically.

Q: And what the hundreds of deaths this caused?

A: They were tragic.

Q: What about the tunnels from the Gaza Strip to Egypt that Israel bombed?

A: They were lifelines for a besieged civilian population.

Q: Didn’t Hamas use them to smuggle rockets and other weapons?

A: Of course, the tunnels were a threat to Israeli security.

Q: Now that you’ve been to Gaza, what do you think of Hamas?

A: Hamas is fanatical Islamic movement sponsored by Iran that seeks Israel’s destruction.

Q: So Israel has a right to be concerned.

A: No, because Hamas is the national resistance movement of an oppressed people.

Q: And what do you think of us Israelis?

A: You are brave and determined.

Q: So you like us?

A: I suppose. Of course, you are the descendants of apes and pigs.

Q: Why did Israel invade?

A: It was provoked.

Q: And why did Hamas bombard Israel’s southern cities?

A: It was provoked.

Q: Couldn’t they have responded differently?

A: No, because the other side understands only force.

Q: What did Israel achieve?

A: All its goals.

Q: And what did Israel fail to do?

A: Finish the job.

Q: When will Hamas stop attacking Israel?

A: When it destroys the Zionist entity and liberates the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Q: And what did it inflict on Israel in this engagement?

A: A decisive loss.

Q: And what has Israel regained?

A: Its deterrence.

Q: What was the outcome of the war?

A: A cease-fire.

Q: What was the immediate cause?

A: The end of a cease-fire.

Q: Hey, where are you going?

A: Back home to a place where clichés don’t kill so many people.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The post The Cliche Expert Visits Gaza appeared first on Jewcy.

A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people; (2) negation of the democratic character of the State; (3) incitement to racism.

After all, none of the ranters accusing the Arab slates of treason thinks that these parties are running guns for Hamas, and the Arab ranters would not be so stupid to do so and then field a slate for the Knesset. The real issue is whether advocating that Israel be a state of all its citizens—rather than a Jewish national state—constitutes sedition in and of itself. That Israel should not be a Jewish state is the official position of Balad and of a part of the Ra’am-Ta’al list. The amendment to the basic law quoted above was passed in response to the election of Meir Kahane to the Knesset. Kahane explicitly denounced democracy and his Kach party vowed to eliminate many of Israel’s democratic institutions and practices. Kahane was his party’s sole representative in the Knesset, but in the early 1980s opinion polls showed Kach gaining support at an alarming rate, and the country’s parliamentarians sought to protect this young and not entirely stable democracy from those who would use democracy’s freedoms to destroy its system. However, in the political bargaining that ensued, the parties of the right demanded that, if the law was to disqualify anti-democrats from running for the Knesset, it should also disqualify anti-Zionists. Their logic was that the Jewish state is essential to the survival of the Jewish people and that therefore advocacy of stripping the state of its Jewish character was ipso facto an attack on the Jewish people. But making opposition to the Jewish character of the state the converse of opposition to its democratic character was problematic from the start. Democracy is the scaffolding of government; the state’s Jewish character is determined by said state having a population that wants the state to be a Jewish nation-state. The state’s Jewish character can’t be set in stone because it depends on the will of the state’s inhabitants. But the state’s democratic character must be inalienable, because if the majority decides that it should not be democratic, no subsequent majority can revoke that decision. To put it another way, the state’s Jewish character is its what, while its democratic character is its how. I am a fervent advocate of the Jewish people’s right to their own nation-state. I strenuously oppose any political party—Arab or Jewish—that says Israel should not be a Jewish state. Neither do I have a high opinion of most of the men (only men) that Balad and Ra’am-Ta’al have sent to the Knesset. But to suggest that Israel should be a state of all its citizens is not treason or sedition. Avid Zionist that I am, there are conditions under which I would, reluctantly and with great fear and trepidation, conclude that Israel could no longer be the country of the Jews—for example, if the majority of people who live in it are not Jews. Balad and Ra’am-Ta’al anger and disturb me, but that’s not cause to keep them out of the Knesset. On the contrary, they and their ideas must be part of Israel’s national conversation. A conversation, not a shouting match, as we saw yesterday at the Central Elections Committee. Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The post Let Them Rage: Why Anti-Zionists Should Be Allowed to Run appeared first on Jewcy.

The post Tough Love: The Moral Choices in the Gaza War appeared first on Jewcy.

Their displacement is nothing compared to the suffering the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been enduring since Saturday, nor compared to that of the permanent residents of Sderot and other southern Israeli towns near Gaza, those who don’t have homes up north to flee to.

When my daughter and her classmates enrolled at Sapir, they knew they’d be studying under fire. But that advance knowledge doesn’t mean that they don’t long to study and draw in peace.

Israel’s attack on Gaza is unlikely to achieve that. Israelis should be wary by now of national leaders who promise that this war, finally, will end Palestinian (or Hezbollah, or whatever) attacks on Israel. It’s unlikely to bring an end to Hamas rule in Gaza, as Tom Segev noted in yesterday’s Ha’aretz. Gazans aren’t the prisoners of Hamas tyranny—this is the government they chose, and pressure and suffering simply reinforces their solidarity and their loyalty to their leadership. And as my South Jerusalem blogging partner Gershom Gorenberg noted yesterday, we shouldn’t necessarily want Hamas to fall. A chaotic, leaderless Gaza Strip will be even worse for Israel than one ruled by Islamic militants.

The current operation is the bloodiest one Israel has ever launched against its Palestinian neighbors. Inevitably, in a place as densely populated as the Gaza Strip is, the civilian death toll is high. That will increase Palestinian and Arab resentment against Israel and lead again to charges from foreign governments and human rights organizations that Israel is guilty of war crimes. The death and destruction that Israel is wreaking on Gaza, they have already begun to charge, is incommensurate with the damage to property and only occasional loss of life inflicted by the missiles and mortars that Palestinian fire from Gaza into Israel.

That’s true, but there’s a fundamental error in the logic. Israel does not need to wait for 300 of its civilians to be killed for it to launch an attack that kills 300 Palestinians. The six-month truce that ended this month brought a welcome respite to both sides, but it ended with Israel facing a better-armed enemy, one capable of doing far more damage. Improved Hamas missiles can reach as far as Be’ersheva and Ashdod, which are both major population centers and home to critical civilian and military infrastructure, including power plants and one of Israel’s major ports.

Israel needs to set back Hamas’s home-grown arms industry and to destroy the tunnels that have been used to import heavy arms into the Gaza Strip. Hamas also needs to understand that, under attack, Israel will be no less united and determined than the Palestinians are. A new modus vivendi needs to be created—one in which Israel permits food, medicine, and vital civilian supplies to enter Gaza in exchange for a Hamas commitment to stop using independent local militias as a proxy for attacking Israel. At the same time, both sides need to begin talking, directly or indirectly—and with the inclusion of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank—to create long-range understandings and to work towards a diplomatic accommodation.

This almost certainly means that Hamas will continue to fire missiles on Sderot from time to time, and the Israel will continue to attack targets in the Gaza Strip. Neither side will be prepared to give up its military options until and if a permanent settlement is achieved. A managed, low-level conflict is a realistic, achievable, and worthwhile goal. If Israel sets its war aims higher, it will be operating under the same kind of delusion that has in the past led it into costly and embarrassing military fiascos.

It’s easy for both the military and civilian leaderships to get carried away. What seems like success and crisp, efficient military execution in the first part of an operation leads to the temptation to set higher goals and pursue the operation further. Let’s not let that happen this time around. Happy endings are nice, but we’re not living in a cartoon.

The post No Happy Endings in Gaza appeared first on Jewcy.

In an interview with Ari Shavit in this morning’s Ha’aretz (which doesn’t, for some reason, appear on the website of the paper’s English edition) Ben-Israel explains why he’s not seeking reelection, and why he’s disappointed with Kadima. “The real strategic threat to Israel is the state of its political system. That threat is more dangerous than the Iranian bomb and the economic crisis,” he declares.

Ben-Israel (whose name in Hebrew is Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael) has one of the best brains ever to grace the Knesset. He came to the legislature after a long career of IDF service as a pilot, in air force operations and intelligence, and weapons development; he has headed the Israel Space Agency and the security studies program of Tel Aviv University. In the midst of all that he managed to get advanced degrees in physics, mathematics, and philosophy.

So what? The Knesset has plenty of generals. It’s even got another philosopher, the Likud’s Yuval Steinitz .

Two decades ago, Isaac Ben-Israel published an intriguing little book in Hebrew called Dialogues on Science and Military Intelligence. It’s an analysis of the intelligence debacle of the Yom Kippur War in the form of a series of hypothetical conversations between a philosopher, a senior army officer, with occasional interjections by other characters, like a psychologist and a historian. Ben-Israel argued that the philosophy of science—in particular, that of Karl Popper and his followers—offers an epistemological method that military intelligence organizations would do well to follow.

In his book, Ben-Israel proposes that the reason Israeli intelligence failed to understand that Egypt and Syria were preparing an attack was that intelligence officers were looking for information to confirm their theories and beliefs about Arab intentions and capabilities. But instead of looking for confirmation, he writes, a good intelligence officer should try to think of what kind of incoming information would falsify his thesis—and comb the reports coming in for precisely these items.

This kind of sober analysis should and can be done in army intelligence. It’s a lot harder to do in politics and government, where image is as, if not more important, than rational policy making. And that’s why Ben-Israel is quitting.

I don’t always agree with Ben-Israel. He comes down more often on the hawkish side than I do. I’m skeptical about the wisdom of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Ben-Israel favors. He’s skeptical that talks with Hamas can help solve the Gaza impasse; I think they need to be part of Israel’s strategy.

But we’re both skeptical of those, on the right and the left, who think that just dialogue or just force can solve Israel’s security problems. When Ben-Israel advocates the use of force in Gaza, he acknowledges that it cannot in the short term end the missile attacks on Israeli territory. The use of force is a tactic, not a strategy. It has to be part of a larger strategy in which Israel uses diplomacy and military power in proper balance. We need to talk to Hamas, but talking won’t help if we don’t show them that we’re willing to take risks to defend ourselves. Military action is useless if it is not predicated on the realization that eventually, in the end, you need to talk about armistices and borders and commerce and the environment that we share. A responsible government is one that explains to the public that there are no easy answers.

Ben-Israel’s frustration is hardly unjustified. As I wrote here last month, Israel’s large parties (and some small ones) have instituted a system for electing their slates that looks democratic but actually promotes the worst kind of mediocrity. And the press here—as in the U.S.—certainly shares the blame. Most journalists who write about politics offer celebrity gossip or horserace commentary rather than delving into the candidates’ philosophical outlooks and stands on the issues. He’s certainly correct that a political system that keeps us from having intelligent discussion of the issues and planning for the long term is more dangerous than nukes, missiles, and a plummeting stock market. Maybe it’s time for him to join the Green Movement/Meimad list and give it the benefit of his sharp mind and philosophical acumen.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The post The Knesset Loses a Philosopher appeared first on Jewcy.

Large parties should not be chucked out like a perfectly good-but-old refrigerator just because the latest model dazzles you. And Labor (which I’ve almost always voted for) and Likud (which I’ve always voted against) have emerged, through the natural selection of the Israeli political environment, as the fittest parties to lead the country.

But these are unusual times, and I’m about to violate my own rule. I’m going to abandon Labor and vote for the new Green Movement.

The Green Movement (not to be confused with the older but largely ineffectual Green Party) has managed in just a few months of activity to put together a high-quality, diverse team of experienced, wonky, and personable activists. Party leader Eran Ben Yemini started as a student environmental activist and has studied both physics and acting. Number two on the list is Alon Tal, the American-born founder of the Israel Union for Environmental Defense and of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. In recent years, when I’ve sat around daydreaming about my dream Knesset, these two have always been high on my list.

Israel needs to make rational environmental planning a priority. As I have written, the country is rapidly losing its remaining green spaces to a combination of misplaced Zionist ideology and overdevelopment.

But rather than being a one-issue party where being green trumps all else, the Green Movement has a broad agenda. “Israel today finds itself in environmental crisis, yet the alarming ecological impacts are only a symptom of a much broader malaise,” says the movement’s mission statement. “It attests to distorted priorities, narrow interests at the expense of the common good, non-transparent and undemocratic decisions, unjust allocation of resources, deep social schisms, and a crisis in values.”

In other words, these Greens see intelligent environmental planning and conservation as a model for how to approach the entire range of issues that Israel faces, from the peace process to social stratification to economics. Environmentalists are used to planning for the long term, rather than putting all their chips in tomorrow while losing sight of the day after.

The Labor Party is moribund; it has no message and is saddled with a leader who seems unable to articulate not only a vision but also day-to-day policy in a way that can attract voters. Meretz, seeking to absorb a group of other left-wing activists, is bogged down in yesterday’s slogans and is in large measure no less a sectorial party than is the ultra-orthodox Sephardi Shas movement.

The Green Movement can offer badly-needed new ideas and new talent to Israel’s parliament. But can it get sufficient votes to gain seats in the Knesset? And with Israel’s political map so fragmented, will a new small party, no matter how intelligent and dedicated, make it even harder for any Israeli government to govern?

Recent polls show the Green Movement scaling the two percent mark. But other small parties have started out with similar figures, only to fail in the general election. To succeed, the Green Movement will have to get beyond its base of college-educated yuppies and attract voters who have not in the past shown significant interest in environmental issues. The potential is there—the party’s policies should be attractive to Israelis who live on Israel’s rural periphery, both Jews and Arabs, and to disaffected Labor voters. But it will take talent, money, and organization.

For that reason, it would be wise for the movement to seek to expand its base. The Green Movement recently rejected an offer from Meretz to explore running a joint list. But if not Meretz, the movement should certainly seek an alliance with other reform movements, most notably Meimad, with its core of moderate religious voters and its politically seasoned leader, Rabbi Michael Melchior.

The fragmentation argument has lost much of its force with Labor’s collapse and with Tzipi Livni’s failure to take off as a candidate. The field to the left of the Likud will be badly split anyway. Such a situation is politically fluid one in which new faces and new ideas are desperately needed.

It’s too late to recycle Labor. In evolutionary terms, the Israeli left is experiencing a mass extinction. The future may well belong to a little critter with a major innovation (a placenta? a larger brain? an intelligent land-use policy?) who doesn’t look right now like a much of a match of the dinosaurs. Right now, the Green Movement looks like a good bet.

Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem

The post Why I’m Going Green appeared first on Jewcy.