Comments From the Edge

Going Through the Motions

2012-01-30T21:00:00.000+02:00

The most recent round of peace talks held between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been declared a failure by the Palestinians, Even though the talks were held at a low level, involving only negotiating representatives from each side, there always somehow seems a little more hope when a dialogue is taking place. In hindsight, it seems quite clear that there was never really any prospect that this round of talks would go anywhere. For the Palestinians, it was always a case of simply going through the motions to get safely to the next trigger point.

Following the unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition from the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the summer of 2011, the Palestinians had promised the Quartet that they would give another round of talks a chance until the 26th January 2012. Having promised this, the Palestinians had no way of escaping from the commitment. Despite the fact that a total of 5 meetings were held in the current round between the parties in a very short period of time, all of which took place under the sponsorship of the Jordanian government in Amman, it became clear very early in the process that there was little intent on the part of the Palestinians to make this round work. Having seemingly exhausted its alternatives by making little progress at the UN, however, the question arises as to why the Palestinians were trying to torpedo these talks? With few alternatives to allow them to make progress towards their objective, it would appear that talks seem to be the best alternative for Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.

In order to better understand why the Palestinians sabotaged the latest talks, it is important to the sub-plots that are going on behind the scenes, and which are having more of an influence on the actions by President Abbas and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. The first issue to address concerns the PA's alternatives at the UN. Even though the UN Security Council and General Assembly seemingly had little interest in promoting the cause of the Palestinians at their meetings last year, the UN is quite a disparate organisation with many different tentacles that are often disconnected from each other. This was demonstrated when, soon after the failure at the General Assembly, the Palestinians did manage to win support for full membership to the UN cultural organisation UNESCO in October 2011. Although this was a poor consolation prize for main objective, it did demonstrate to the Palestinians that they could use a slower and indirect approach in order to work their way into the UN organisation. This includes the possibility of making use of the UN-sponsored International Court of Justice to charge Israelis with crimes against humanity arising from events in the recent Gaza War, Operation Cast Lead. The Palestinians have repeatedly threatened to make use of this avenue in their battle against Israel. Even if charges that they may bring through this court are ultimately dismissed, such actions could tie individual Israelis and the Israeli government up in legal proceedings for many years. By bringing the latest round of peace talks with Israel to an end, the prospect of stepping up actions through these UN organisations is placed firmly back on the table, and exactly where the Palestinians wish it to be.

The second sub-plot concerns the evolution of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas. The Palestinian Authority is controlled by Fatah, and with Mahmoud Abbas already serving his 8th year of a 4-year term, there is a great deal of pressure for elections to be held. Fatah is clearly reluctant to call elections when there is a real prospect of them being routed, even in their perceived stronghold of the West Bank. Many of these issues were taken care of, when a deal was signed between Hamas and Fatah to create a unity government for the Palestinian Authority. This deal is a typical attempt to extend the longevity of politicians on both sides of the divide, by denying the electorate the right to express its will through the ballot box. With Hamas being absolutely opposed to holding any negotiations with Israel at all, the establishment of the unity government was put on hold while the latest talks were held. Now, with the talks dead and buried, the blockage has been removed. For Fatah, entering into a closer relationship with Hamas may allow it to share in some of the popular support that Hamas continues to enjoy following recent prisoner exchange deal. It may also extend the political lives of some of the bigger names.

A further sub-plot in play concerns the ongoing events in the Arab World, and the events which have resulted from the "Arab Spring". Mahmoud Abbas has announced that he will be taking the issue of the failed talks with the Israelis to the Arab League, to get direction as to what should happen next. With the Arab League occupied with events in Syria, Abbas may have a created a smokescreen under which to operate. Interestingly, the effects of the Arab Spring also seem to have created something of a split within Hamas, which may yet have an impact on the Palestinian Authority via the inclusion of Hamas in the unity government activities. The leadership that was formerly based in Damascus (reports suggest that Khaled Meshal and his team have fled the Syrian capital) feel that non-violent protest against Israel may be effective as a "Palestinian Spring", after having seen the impact of the popular uprising in Syria and Egypt first-hand. The Gaza leadership is quite clear that it has no intention of adopting a new non-violent approach against Israel, and this issue may yet cause further internal conflict within the Palestinian camp.

The way in which the Palestinians went through the motions in the recent peace talks seemed a little more transparent than usual. Despite the fact that the talks were primarily addressing the issues of borders and security, an Israeli official was prevented from fully presenting Israel's position on borders to the Amman meeting. An Israeli document setting out 21 points of principles needed to reach a peace agreement was not considered, and was then dismissed as being "just an outline". These attempts to dismiss Israel's honest efforts in the talks seem clearly designed to sabotage the talks. In the press, Israel's border proposals have been labelled as "preventing a Palestinian state from being established", and have been blamed for the breakdown of the talks.

In spite of the obvious reasons for the breakdown, the stale mate somehow seems still to have produced a slight edge for the Palestinian side. The breakdown of the talks has been presented by the international community by saying that the Palestinians have at least fulfilled their commitment to continue to try until the pre-agreed date of 26th January. Having tried and failed, all bets are off the table, but the rewards due to the Palestinians are triggered. European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton even had the audacity to call upon Israel to deliver "confidence-building concessions" to encourage the talks to continue. We have already learned that this means delivering confidence to the international community, and concessions to the Palestinians. The Palestinian side seems not to be expected to deliver confidence nor the concessions. The international community would be better off understanding that any such concessions on Israel's part, would amount to rewards to the Palestinians for bad behaviour.

It seems clear to me that a lasting peace will only be possible via a negotiated settlement. This was also recognised by Fatah strongman Marwan Barghouti, who remains in an Israeli jail serving five life sentences for murder of Israeli citizens. He made a rare court appearance during the last week, and managed to send out a message indicating that he believes in a negotiated settlement based on the 1967 borders. The precise terms of the negotiated settlement remain a large outstanding issue, but it is interesting that the person believed to be the instigator of both the first and second intifadas is talking about a negotiated settlement at all. The problem right now, is that there appear to be few Palestinians who believe that this is the correct route to take, and who are prepared to make the painful concessions necessary to bring this to reality. Until this happens, the Palestinians will be going through the motions, and the cycle of violence will continue.

Racism Has No Place in the State of Israel

2012-01-16T14:00:00.000+02:00

Israel is frequently accused of racism, particularly by those who continue to undermine her right to exist. Despite being forced to fight a war of survival against the Arab nations since independence in 1948, Israel continues to come under a microscope for the way in which she behaves towards Arabs who are Israeli citizens, and those who are not. It is a complex analysis, and not simply an issue of racism. Arab citizens have a completely different status in Israel. Their allegiance to the Jewish state in which they live and which feeds their every need, continues to be under suspicion. They have frequently been found to assist those who wish to destroy Israel. They are not obliged to serve in the nation's army in the same way as others citizens are required to do. The relationship between Jew and Arab in Israel is not simply about race, but more about Jewish survival in the Jewish homeland. There is, however, another sort of racism that has reared its ugly head in Israel in recent times, and which needs to be stamped out before it is becomes unmanageable.

It seems that the practice of attempting to elevate the status of one population group at the expense of others is almost part of human instinct. Historically, Jews have been victims of those who have tried to increase their own social standing by putting down other weaker groups. The African nation has also suffered from this problem almost wherever their people have found themselves, both within Africa and elsewhere. In modern America, the Mexicans play the role of the fall guys, in India the caste system defines those who are at the bottom of the ladder, Gypsies in Europe are frequently discriminated against and Philippino workers in the countries of the Gulf of Arabia take their place at the bottom of society. This instinct has unfortunately not by-passed Israel.

In the early years of the State of Israel, the country was populated by two distinct groups of Jews. The first group escaped many years of persecution in Europe, and arrived in Israel out of the ruins of the Holocaust that ravaged their population and people. The second group had made their homes in Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, and had been forced to endure discrimination for many years, especially during the period when the Holocaust was ravaging Europe. This discrimination became even more acute after the birth of the State of Israel, and many were expelled from their homes. Those in the European group were generally better educated and were well versed in European culture, while those in the Middle Eastern group were less exposed to western values, education and culture. Many clashes took place between these groups, and the human instinct came out in their attempts to elevate themselves to make themselves better than the others. The horrific discrimination that each group had been forced to endure in the years prior to their arrival in Israel had a significant influence on their attempts to better themselves, even at the expense of others. After having been treated as the dregs of society for so long, each group was eager to elevate themselves to the top of society. To be at the top, you need to have somebody who is below you. Hence was born racism and discrimination in Israel, which manifested itself largely in the form of European Jews discriminating against Middle Eastern Jews. The fact that the Middle Eastern Jews were also generally darker skinned than their European counterparts also somehow fitted the standard expectations of discrimination, even though the darker skin was not the source of the discrimination. Despite the fact that these discriminatory views have presented their problems over the years, it is pleasing to note that the problem has been substantially diluted by inter-marriage and the blurring of edges between the two groups. It is also notable that representatives from both groups have reached the upper echelons of business, politics and academia. Nobody will ever forget where they and their families have come from, but the future in Israel looks less defined by these two groups than was previously the case.

Recently, however, racism has again become evident, this time against another weaker population group in Israel. In operations starting in 1984, Jews from Ethiopia were airlifted to Israel in large numbers. Operation Moses saw some 8,000 people brought to Israel and this was followed up with further operations which brought a total of about 80,000 people to Israel. Today, the Ethiopian community in Israel numbers over 120,000. The Ethiopians have become easy targets for discrimination for a number of reasons, and many have taken advantage of this situation

Upon their arrival in Israel, the Ethiopian community was forced to take on an entirely new environment. Many of them had never seen a flush toilet in operation or slept in a bed that was not on the ground. This learning process put them in a very weak position, and made it easy for others to take advantage of them. The Ethiopians show a gentle and mild temperament, and are not outspoken or loud in their actions. In the Israeli aggressive and rough-and-tumble environment, their gentleness is interpreted as weakness. In the Israeli context of whoever screams loudest and shows most aggression will get what they want, the Ethiopian community has lost out significantly. Even though the Ethiopian community has been forced to take on many of the ways of the modern Israeli environment, they have still done their best to maintain some of their traditions and practices from their days in the deserts of Africa. Many of these practices are very different from those in use by other Israelis, and cause some level of friction in residential neighbourhoods. This friction crossed the line last week when it was revealed that residents of some apartment buildings in Kiryat Malachi, had banded together in a pact not to sell apartments in their block to Ethiopian families.

What these people had not realised, is that there is a new type of person that has arisen within the Ethiopian community over the past ten years or so. This is a group of teenagers and young adults who were born in Israel, and have grown up with Israeli style of doing business. While these people are strongly influenced from the home by the traditional Ethiopian style of living, they also know the kind of action that is needed in Israel to be heard and to get what they want. These young adults led other members of the Ethiopian community out onto the streets in protest against the racist practices that are making things difficult for their community. This protest captured the attention of the media and of the nation. It reached the highest levels of the political establishment, and President Shimon Peres responded by visiting a school in Jerusalem that caters to a large number of Ethiopian students. He shared with them his experiences of coming to Israel from Poland at the age of 11, and the taunts that he was forced to endure as a result of his lack of Hebrew and different style of dress. He reassured the children by saying that he found his way of fitting into Israeli society, and he is proof that they can achieve whatever they want - even becoming president of the state.

The Ethiopian community includes some of the most genuine people to be found in Israel today. They gave up everything they knew and their style of living in Africa to come to the Jewish homeland. Despite the fact that their lives and communities have literally been turned upside down by moving to Israel, they are delighted to be in Israel to be allowed to practice their Jewish faith and peace and without the fear of anti-Semitism. They have suffered every sort of discrimination known to any group of people in Israel. Even the Israeli government stands accused of discriminating against the Ethiopians in terms of the help and assistance provided to them. Many were forced to convert as the Jewishness was not recognised at the same time as blood relatives had been accepted as Jewish. The amount of money allocated to the process of acclimatising the Ethiopian community has been a fraction of that required. And yet, they are simply delighted to be in the Land of Israel. While it is understood that not everybody can feel comfortable with the style of living and practices of the Ethiopians, this cannot be the cause of racism.

No matter what the cause of racism, it needs to be stamped out. This is particularly true in a country like Israel where racism has no place at all. The weaker members of our society, usually those who are the victims of discrimination, require greater help and support rather than actions to increase their hardship. This is particularly true of groups like the Ethiopians who have been forced to undergo dramatic changes to their way of life and to the environment in which they live.

It is only by banding together and strengthening the weaker parts of our society, that we will also have the strength to fight the war of survival. The Ethiopians have more than demonstrated their allegiance to this cause, and their willingness to participate in the defence of the State of Israel. The other citizens of Israel need to do all that they can to support and respect this.

Justice Prevails

2012-01-09T23:00:00.000+02:00

The meeting of the Judicial Appointments Committee on Friday turned out to be something of a pleasant anti-climax. In a meeting that lasted only 90 minutes, four new justices were duly appointed to the bench of the Israeli Supreme Court. The cordial nature of the meeting and the appointments seemed to conceal the less-than-cordial path that led to this moment.

Israel's Supreme Court plays a very central role in Israeli society. In addition to acting as an appellate court, it also acts as a High Court of Justice in which decisions by government and state authorities can be challenged and set aside. The right of the Supreme Court to set aside government decisions creates a critical place for it in Israeli democracy. It is little wonder that the appointment of new justices to the bench of this court is such an important and controversial exercise. Once appointed to the Supreme Court, justices serve until they are seventy years of age and cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances. The judges on the bench need to be act independently of government, and need to be seen to act independently of government to maintain their important role as defender of democracy.

For some time now, certain ultra-Orthodox and right-wing citizens of Israel have protested that decisions by the Supreme Court have discriminated against their views and positions. While many Israelis have regarded the court's decisions as representing the voice of reason in situations which have seemed wholly unreasonable, some groups feel discriminated against by these decisions. Surprisingly, it seems as if this view was not only shared by extremists. In the lead-up to the meeting of the Judicial Appointments Committee, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister threatened to become caught up in a judicial appointments row. Their actions pointed unashamedly to the fact that they also subscribe to the view that the bench of the Supreme Court has become too left-wing. Certain actions and statements on their behalf attempted to influence the makeup of the Judicial Appointments Committee in the hope that this may influence the appointment of the Supreme Court judges towards their right-wing views.

The nine-man Judicial Appointments Committee includes two members who are appointed by the Israeli Bar Association. The remaining seven members of the committee are made up of three sitting judges of the Supreme Court, two ministers and two members of Knesset. The two Bar Association representatives are chosen in a vote that is conducted according to a simple majority. The two representatives were chosen to the satisfaction of the Bar Association, and this revealed that one representative was somebody known to be politically left of centre. Individuals close to the Minister of Justice embarked upon a campaign to retroactively change the rules by which the Bar Association candidates were selected, in order to replace the left-wing representative. It was hoped that this would ensure that the right-wing candidates to the bench would be appointed. This attempt to undermine the due process of appointment of justices is shameful, and can be seen as an attempt to meddle with an important arm of the democracy of our nation. No person is larger than the system, and no individual should be allowed to undermine the operation of a process that is so fundamental to the democracy of the country.

Ultimately, the attempts to change the rules retroactively were unsuccessful, and the original vote of the Bar Association stood. Their two representatives took their place on the Judicial Appointments Committee and four new judges were appointed. Despite the controversy and shenanigans leading up to the vote, the four new candidates can be seen as typifying compromise and organisation. Justice Noam Sohlberg lives in Alon Shvut on the West Bank, and was elected by eight of the nine committee members as a representative of the right. Justice Zvi Zylbertal was elected unanimously as a candidate from the left. He is regarded as being very close to retiring Judge President Dorit Beinisch. Justice Uri Shoham was also elected unanimously, and is seen to represent those of North African and Middle Easter (Mizrachi) origin. Finally, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez received unanimous support as the only female new judge.

Whereas in the USA, the appointment of judges is a highly politicised process and is a good way for presidents to leave a legacy long after the end of their presidential term, in Israel this has not been the case until now. It may, however be set to change in the future, even though it seems as though this would be an unfortunate development. Due to the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court is frequently called upon to adjudicate matters which have strong political overtones, it is important that the bench should be as politically impartial as possible. This is particularly true when living in a society with so many minority groupings. Citizens should feel confident that the Supreme Court will judge fairly and independently on each case that is brought before the court. On this occasion, democracy has ensured that even the Minister of Justice was unable to influence the process of justice. This is real democracy in action.

The Best and Worst of 2011

2012-01-02T23:00:00.000+02:00

As we welcome 2012, it gives the opportunity to reflect on the best and worst parts of 2011. In Israel, 2011 was an eventful year, including a number of interesting and challenging events. For some, it was a year that they would prefer to forget. Despite many negative aspects to the year, I think that Israelis will regard 2011 as having been a year that was more positive than negative. Here are the main reasons why I think that this was the case.

The best story coming out of 2011 was the release of captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. It is not only the fact that Gilad was returned safely to the arms of his family that makes this story good. The fact that the Israeli government was finally able to agree and execute this deal sends some amazingly strong and positive statements to all Israelis. For me, this is a classic story where the right thing finally triumphed. Like all good stories, this has a negative side to it as well. I really cannot blame all of those who opposed the deal due to the "price" that had to be paid in terms of the number of Palestinian prisoners who were released, even those who have murdered Israelis. I also know how paranoid the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is about the possibility of soldiers being kidnapped in the future, and the measures that have been put in place to try to avoid this at any price. I feel that working to avoid future kidnappings is a better reaction than leaving Gilad in captivity under the conditions that he was held. This was, by far, the highlight of the year in my view.

Another good story of 2011 was that of the social protests. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate against lack of social justice, and of the dramatic increases in the cost of living without commensurate increases in earnings. This was a great story for a number of reasons. It was good to see the Israeli public having the time and energy to devote to social issues, and behaving in a manner that most "normal" countries behave. In the 63 years since Israel's independence, most of the time has been spent worrying about an existential threat. Wars have been fought, terror attacks overcome and many people have been left dead and injured. This allows little time or energy to give even a fleeting thought to daily social issues. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis were able to come out into the street to protest social issues gives some indication that the existential threat is not quite at the same level as it has been in the past. It also shows what Israelis really care about, and shows the real democracy that exists in Israel. On all of these levels, the protests were extremely encouraging. These good points, however, should not cause us to lose sight of the core issue of these protests - the economic inequality and hardships that many people are suffering. Unfortunately, the government has not responded sufficiently to the message of the protest marches, and this issue is likely to plague us for some time yet.

A further good story for 2011 was the extent to which the economy succeeded in holding up during the year. Even though this seems to be at odds with the message brought by the social protest movement, more Israelis were in employment during 2011 than at any other time in Israel's history. In addition, while economies around the world were floundering and suffering all types of economic problems, Israel somehow managed to keep its economy on track. This does not mean that the year translated into a boom year for Israel. It does, however, continue the theme of displaying a real underlying strength to Israel's economy that was shown during 2008 when the credit crunch hit many economies so hard. Once again in 2011, Israel's economy has performed admirably. Along with the good things, come some very difficult questions. Why are so many Israelis struggling financially when the economy is at almost full employment? This is clearly something that needs to be addressed as part of the social equality agenda.

The major regional story this year was the unfolding of the Arab Spring in countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The way in which the Arab Spring has swept through the region could never have been predicted. Even though this is great news for democracy in the Middle East, it has created an instability that is proving to be negative for Israel, and many countries in the western world. While the free world has an obligation to support the move towards democracy in principle, there is a real problem about whether these countries are really ready to embrace democracy. In many respects, stability in the Arab world is more important than democracy. As things seem at the moment, the two don't seem to be able to live side by side. The change of regime in Egypt is particularly concerning, with the increasing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood. The protest movement in Syria also promises some dramatic changes to regional politics, and they are not necessarily all going to be positive.

The second major regional story surrounds Iran's development of nuclear weapons. 2011 can be characterised as a year of confirmation and inaction where this is concerned. The international community were presented with irrefutable evidence of Iran's development of nuclear missiles. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency were forced to accept that Israel's representations about Iran's nuclear program have been correct all along. Having had this fact confirmed, the best that the international community could muster up, were a few ineffectual sanctions. It has become clear that Iran is not only setting out to threaten Israel. The events over the past few days in the Straits of Hormuz are a clear challenge to the US. The military exercise on this occasion closed the straights for only a short period of time. The next time could be for longer, precipitating a potential military conflict with the USA.

Despite the fact that 2011 was a hugely eventful year, it seems only to have set the scene for what awaits us in 2012. Israel's social justice movement is likely to be more vociferous, particularly if the economy suffers more than it did in 2011. The government will need to be prepared to commit to spend more money on social issues, and to see these promises through. This is an issue that is no less imporant than Israel's security challenges.

The Arab Spring will come to a head in Syria. It seems as though the Sunni Muslims, who represent over 70% of the population, are likely to gain the ascendancy after having been ruled by the minority Alawites for many years. The Spring could yet spread to other countries in the region, and this could present a greater threat to Israel as more of her neighbours became destabilised by these events.

I expect that 2012 will also see the Iranian nuclear issue come to a head, as Iran continues to intimidate and provoke Israel, the USA and other western countries. All of this adds up to 2012 looking to be a tough year.

In between the pessimistic expectations are a few rays of light. Even though I expect a great deal of instability during 2012, it is my hope that this will then bring a period of greater stability as is often the case. I also hope that the unfolding Arab Spring can create a new, more compromising, reality with the Palestinians to allow moves towards a genuine peace based on mutual recognition and respect.

It is my hope and prayer that 2012 holds only great things for all of you. Happy new year!!

Gender Segregation Pushed Too Far

2011-12-26T12:00:00.000+02:00

Image by www.mizozo.com

Despite many indications that Israel is a country that appears to promote gender equality more than most other countries around the world, there have been worrying signs of greater gender segregation creeping into some aspects of Israeli society recently. Israel's Golda Meir was only the third female prime minister in the world, and Israeli women are required to serve in the Israeli army in the same way as their male counterparts. These are all indications of Israel's progressive approach to women. Yet this is the same country which closes off entire streets to the use of women, and requires them to sit at the back of the bus while their male counterparts sit at the front.

Ultra-Orthodox groups in Jerusalem and elsewhere around Israel, have been increasingly trying to enforce greater gender segregation. There is also already fairly strict gender segregation enforced in ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods such as Jerusalem's Mea Shearim. This is tolerable inasmuch as those who are subject to the segregation, are those who subscribe to it. For the people living in Mea Shearim, gender segregation is part of their belief system and lifestyle. Women are raised with this from birth, attend separate schools and are readied to take on separate traditional roles in the home and society. Visitors to Mea Shearim know that this is the way in which things work in this neighbourhood, and are invited to stay away if this is objectionable to them.

The problem arises when supporters of gender segregation allow this to creep out into the general public, thereby affecting those who do not subscribe to it. This has already long been the case in Jerusalem, with advertisers refusing to show images of women on buses and billboards for fear of them being defaced by ultra-Orthodox protestors. Despite a court order prohibiting gender segregation in specific streets, even in ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods, residents of Mea Shearim set up separation barriers on Mea Shearim Street and Shivtei Yisrael Street during the recent Succot holiday. The hard-line Toldot Aharon Hassidic sect were holding events relating to the holiday on locations in these streets, and were prohibiting women from approaching even near to these locations.

Two recent events have brought the gender segregation to a head, and have forced politicians and religious leaders to speak out on the issue. The first event was a walkout of a military ceremony by religious soldiers when women soldiers began to sing at the ceremony. The protestors subscribe to the so-called "kol isha" prohibition, which forbids males from hearing women sing. The IDF's general staff has refused to back down on this issue. The protesting soldiers were not given permission to leave the ceremony , and have been disciplined for their behaviour. The military authorities have refused to heed calls to ban singing by women in future ceremonies. This has brought the military into direct conflict with some ultra-Orthodox groups.

The second incident took place on a bus that was designated as a gender-separate service, something that has become more popular in Israel in recent years. This means that women are required to sit at the back of the bus, while their male counterparts get to sit in the front. Upon entering the bus, Tanya Rosenblit was requested by one of the religious males to sit in the ladies' section at the bank. In a protest which was reminiscent of the actions by Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama in the 1950s, Tanya refused to relocate to the back of the bus. This sparked a stand-off in which the bus was halted and the police called. In a statement after the incident, Rosenblit said that she had shown respect by dressing modestly because she knew she was going into a religious area. She refused, however, to be humiliated by being forced to sit at the back of the bus. She has taken on a somewhat heroic status in the eyes of many, by being prepared to stand up to the religious coercion, something that few women have been prepared to do.

Israeli Chief Rabbi, Yona Metzger, came out recently saying that religious people are entitled to live their lives as they see fit, but they have no right to impose their views on the general public and in public areas. Prime Minister Netanyahu announced at the Sunday morning cabinet meeting that Israel is a liberal democracy, and that public spaces are made available to men and women to use equally in a safe and open way. The police will arrest those who spit, raise their hand or harass others. These statements will sadly have no bearing at all on those who perpetrate gender segregation. They do not respect these leaders, nor take note of anything they say. They subscribe only to the leadership of the rabbinical leaders of their sects, and will only be guided by their statements.

It is ironic that these events take place at the same time that it is announced that no fewer than 5 female pilots and navigators, the most ever, will graduate from this year's air force flight instruction course. It is only 16 short years since Alice Miller succeeded in challenging the prohibition on women being admitted to the flight instruction course. Since then, many women have graduated from this course to serve their country with great distinction. This year, 5 more women will join their distinguished ranks. This is closer to the Israel that most of us know, a country which does support the equality of women in our society and which does encourage women to play a full role.

Despite the insistence by religious groups to enforce greater gender segregation and become more extreme in their views and actions, it seems unlikely that the greater public and the politicians will tolerate this. While this does not mean that religious groups will be forced to dilute their religious observance, it simply means that they will be forced to limit their extreme views to their own environments, while allowing others to live their lives without being dictated to. Surely this is the correct answer.

The Apple Never Falls Far From the Tree

2011-12-19T12:00:00.000+02:00

Many were taken by surprise last week when it was announced that the Apple Corporation has decided to open a development centre in Israel. The main reason for the surprise, is the fact that Apple's strategy to date has been to centralise all of its development effort at its corporate headquarters in Cupertino, California. The Israeli development centre will be the first one that Apple will open outside of the Cupertino headquarters. Has this new step been enabled by the recent departure and demise of former Apple CEO and icon, Steve Jobs? Perhaps so. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that the direction in which new CEO Tim Cook is taking the company, is not far removed from the strategy which Jobs pursued so successfully prior to his death.

Apple's meteoric rise in recent years has largely been driven by the innovation of its range of new products. This has not been the only contributing factor to Apple's success. In addition to bucking the trend by developing products and features which are different and exciting in a world which is oversupplied by all manner of electronic goods, Apple has also succeeded in achieving gross profit margins in excess of 40% on its sales. This is far higher than its peer group of hardware vendors. The way that Apple has achieved this, is by taking full control of its supply chain. This has not necessarily required the acquisition of key suppliers, although this has been done on more than a few occasions. Rather, the way in which this control has been achieved is by securing large volumes of required components ahead of time. By doing this, Apple has succeeded in avoiding seasonal fluctuations in supply volumes and prices, even though it has required a substantial commitment of capital. It is this strategy that has led Apple to Israel, and ultimately led it to the decision to establish a development centre here.

Apple's products rely heavily on flash memory, and the company spends billions of dollars a year in acquiring these components. Israeli company Anobit has been a supplier of NAND flash memory to Apple, and develops systems for improving this component. Apple has decided that acquiring Anobit could save it 10-20% on its purchase of flash memory each year, and Anobit has been put firmly on Apple's shopping list. Acquiring Anobit may also allow Apple to cut off the company's cooperation with Samsung, one of Apple's fiercest rivals in the field of smartphones and tablets. Anobit seems also to have been a catalyst for Apple's interest in Israeli technology, and appears to have influenced the decision taken by Apple to set up a development centre in Israel. This centre will focus primarily on semiconductor development, a field that Israeli companies have excelled in over the years.

Even though the marriage between Apple and Israeli technological development seems obvious to some, it still requires a champion within a large company to drive through an initiative of this sort. In Apple's case, the decision to open a development centre in Israel has been championed by former Haifa resident Johnny Srouji, who was hired by Apple 3 years ago. He has risen in the ranks of Apple to the level of vice president. Now, the Israeli press is full of details of the fact that Apple has been searching for premises in Haifa which are reputed to be large enough to house as many as 250 employees. Israeli high-tech veteran Aharon Aharon has been hired to head up the new Apple development centre.

Companies such as Intel, Microsoft and Google have enjoyed tremendous success by using Israeli brainpower. It is no secret that it was Israeli engineers who helped Intel to break through significant barriers in the development of their processors. This has contributed, in no uncertain terms, to Intel's continued successes over the years. Now, Apple has decided to also tap into this pool of talent to help take its products to the next level. It is expected that Israeli expertise in flash storage could help to speed up iPhones and iPads, as well as the data transfer between them.

Apple representatives have said that the company will continue to open the new development centre even if the deal to acquire Anobit does not go ahead. The truth is, that either one of these acts on Apple's part would come as a huge compliment to Israeli hi-tech and engineering. Both deals being done would surely make Apple a substantial player in Israel's technology sector, and will place Israeli technology at the forefront of the world's leading-edge products. This is a great achievement for the previous generations of Israeli engineers, and a fantastic incentive for the next generation in order to keep Israeli hi-tech to reach greater heights.

Despite the fact that Israeli technology has already received recognition as amongst the best in the world, the decision by Apple to open its first development centre outside of California is a fantastic accolade.

How to Bring Israelis Home

2011-12-14T20:24:00.001+02:00

The Jewish Agency recently took a decision to make a change to their usualactivities to attract Jews to come and live in the Jewish homeland. Until now,the activities of the Jewish Agency have been focused towards attracting Jewswho have lived their lives in the Jewish Diaspora, to come and make their homesin Israel. They have concentrated on two main targets. Firstly, they have concentrated on Jewish communities at risk or in need,such as the Jews in Morocco, Yemen, Russia and Ethiopia who were shipped toIsrael in large projects, and sometimes in some haste. The Jewish Agency hasalso focused on attracting the attention of Jews in communities which were notunder threat, such as Jews in the USA, the UK, South Africa, Australia, SouthAmerica and other locations. The tactics employed in these communities haslargely targeted the youth and the young adults to experience the vibrancy thatIsrael offers people of this age, in the hope that parents and other familymembers will follow the youngsters to Israel.
The new campaign that the Jewish Agency has embarked upon recently is aimedat an entirely different community. This time, the Jewish Agency is trying toattract former Israelis to come back home. In some parts of the world, andparticularly around the USA, fairly large groups of former-Israelis (or yordimas they are sometimes known) have established themselves. It is estimated thatas many as half a million Israelis live in the USA, and that this number hasgrown by 30,000 in the past ten years alone. Most yordim continue to havea close connection with Israel, and visit members of their family on a fairlyfrequent basis. Although many voice an intention to return to live in Israel atsome point in the future, the numbers of yordim continues to grow. Thelink to Israel for these people is stronger during times of security crisis.They obviously have a strong concern for individual friends and family who maybe at risk during times of unrest, and those who are serving in the IDF duringperiods of war. There is a concern, however, that their link to Israeland Judaism gets weaker the longer they live outside of Israel.

The Jewish Agency campaign to try to convince yardarm to return home, hascaused a great deal of negative reaction in the USA where adverts have appearedon billboards in areas where large communities of Israelis reside. Thishas been supported by online video adverts that have been launched. Thecampaign focuses largely on the fact that the intermarriage of children ofyardarm may result in assimilation. One video advert shows Israel grandparentscommunicating with their grandchild, in the USA on Chanukah. The parents askwhat holiday the child is celebrating, to which he answers “Christmas”. Inanother advert, a yored father is upset by the fact that his child is callinghim “daddy” rather than “abba”. The message is clear. The longer these peoplestay in their current environments, the more assimilated they become.

The Jewish community in the USA has come out in strong objection to theadvertising campaign. The main reason for their objection is that theassimilation referred to in the adverts is not limited to Israelis who marrynon-Jews. It also includes the situation where Israelis marryDiaspora Jews. This is particularly reflected in advert which shows ayoung Israeli woman watching a Yom Hazikaron ceremony on-line, while herAmerican husband is seeing asking her to go out to a party. Theinsinuation that American Jews are somehow disconnected, is seen as beinga slap in the face of the Jewish community in the USA, and their attempts tomaintain their Judaism and their links to Israel. I can understand theinsult felt by the USA Jewish communities. Apparently the Israeligovernment has also understood this as they have pulled the campaign since theuproar flared up.

As much as the campaign is disparaging towards the American Jewishcommunity, it also contains a great deal of truth. There can be no doubtthat assimilation has ravaged the world’s Jewish population in the period followingthe Shoah, particularly that in the USA. Recent statistics suggest that40-50% of American Jews marry non-Jews. Of these, only 33% providetheir children with a Jewish upbringing. This means that there is anincreasing number of “Jewish” children who are not halachically Jewish due totheir mothers not converting to Judaism. There are also a large number ofchildren who are simply lost to Judaism as a result of their Jewish parentmarrying a non-Jew, and the family not identifying with the Jewishcommunity at all. This trend will have an impact on the Israeli communityin the USA as well, even those who have a strong national identification withthe State of Israel.

Israel has one of the few Jewish communities in the world that aregrowing. This is not only because of aliyah and population growth. It is also because there is much less of a problem of assimilation inIsrael. It is sometimes amusing to note the effect of the Jewish andIsraeli national holidays, even on the non-Jewish foreign workers inIsrael. It is simply impossible for a child in Israel, even those raisedin homes that don’t have a strong sense of Jewish identity, to miss a Jewishfestival or not to be familiar with its main aspects. This must surely bea strong reason why it is right to do all that we can to attract Israelis backhome, as much as we wish to attract others to make Israel their home. While I have a great deal of respect for the efforts made by the Jews in theUSA and elsewhere to identify with Judaism and Israel, I feel that the only wayto assure ourselves of Jewish continuity is to have as many Jews in Israel aspossible.

Egypt's Elections Produce a Surprise Package

2011-12-04T14:00:00.000+02:00

The Arab Spring uprisings began exactly 1 year ago this month. The demonstrations against the government of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia began in December 2010, and resulted in him being removed from power 1 month later. The Spring subsequently spread to many other countries in the Middle East, and has been encouraged by enthusiastic support from the western countries. Ironically, the one voice of hesitation against the uprisings came from Israel. At the time, it was difficult for many to understand why Netanyahu did not support the Spring whole-heartedly. Now, a year later, his reasons are starting to become apparent.

Netanyahu's concern about the uprisings were most obvious when the demonstrations reached Egypt, and thousands of Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square demanding the head of President Hosni Mubarak. It was clear that Mubarak had ruled with an iron fist in the 30 years that he had presided over Egypt. He was never elected in a free democratic election, and he never repealed the emergency laws under which his government and his security apparatus were entitled to do almost as they wished, and which they used to maximum effect. Most citizens around the world who have lived in a democratic system (as well as many who have not) felt some level of empathy with Egyptians as they demanded, and finally got, the resignation of their president. Netanyahu's voice was a lone one during that time, and it seemed strange to many that the leader of a free and democratic country would express concern about the democratisation of another country. There were silent whispers about whether the relationship between Mubarak and Netanyahu held more than what was publicly known. There were mutterings about whether the gas deal that was struck between Egypt and Israel, and which Mubarak's family are reputed to have personally profited from, possibly held personal profits for Israel's leaders too. All the while, Netanyahu was heard to speak out in understated tones about his concerns for the Arab Spring.

Fast forward 11 months since the day that it was announced that Mubarak had resigned from power, and how different the situation looks. Egypt has undergone its first round of voting in its nascent democratic process, and things are looking distinctly worrying for Israel and the west. Voting for the lower house of Egypt's parliament has revealed that Islamic extremist groups are likely to rule in the new Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was held responsible for the assassination of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and which remained a banned organisation throughout the 30 years of Mubarak's rule, has emerged as the strongest party in the elections. There are those who believe that this support comes as a result of euphoria over the unbanning of the Muslim Brotherhood, not unlike the euphoria which saw the ANC sweep to power in South Africa after it was unbanned. There are those, however, who believe that this reflects a trend towards Islamic fundamentalism that can be seen in many countries around the world. This is borne out by the meteoric rise of the Salafist Al-Nour party which received the second highest number of votes in the first round. The Salafists advocate greater Islamic fundamentalism than the Muslim Brotherhood, and wish to apply Islamic Sharia law to Egypt. They make the Muslim Brotherhood look like amateur fundamentalists.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had strong showings in the elections in Tunisia and Morocco, is not nearly as concerning as the indications of the trend in Egypt. Besides the fact that Egypt has a direct land border with Israel, Egypt also enjoys a strategic position both geographically and politically in the current fragile state of international diplomacy. Is the election result in Egypt showing that some countries are not yet ready to cope with western-style democracy, as so many people claim? Or is the truth that Hosni Mubarak's iron fist also worked to protect the west against the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism? Netanyahu seems to have been one of the only western leaders who understood this at a stage that it was still early enough to do something. Unfortunately, his was very much a lone voice, and he had no prospect of stemming the tide towards the overthrow of Mubarak.

The Israeli establishment understood as soon as Mubarak left power that Israel's relationship with Egypt has changed forever. There are some doubts as to whether the peace treaty signed between late Prime Minister Menachem Begin and late President Anwar Sadat will be respected by the new regime. Even if it is, a new era has dawned for Israel and Egypt. This will also manifest itself in Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. The Muslim Brotherhood is a close ally of Hamas. Whereas President Mubarak worked hard with the Israelis to try to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons into the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to do the exact opposite. This promises greater and more sophisticated attacks coming from Gaza, spelling real danger for southern Israel, and for the safety and security of the State of Israel as a whole.

It will be interesting to watch what sort of political system will manifest itself in post-Gaddafi Libya. In this case, western countries were actively involved in overthrowing Gaddafi by supplying NATO air power to assist rebel forces against him. Now, they will be forced to stand back to allow a new democratic government to replace the old dictatorship. But who will be the new elected leaders of Libya, and could it be that the west may yet come to regret this too? Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

Message To My Son

2011-11-26T23:00:00.000+02:00

My son,

For the past fourteen years, we knew that this day would eventually come. Somehow, I did not imagine that it would be like this. When we decided all those years ago to make our home in Israel, you were only 6 years old. The notion of you becoming a soldier in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) seemed so far removed from the reality of our everyday lives. We were living in the post-Oslo period, which gave us all a false sense of security that peace was about to break out in the Middle East. The advantages of moving our lives to the Jewish homeland, seemed to far outweigh the disadvantages. This was true even when we considered the fact that you would be obliged to serve in the Jewish army. Now that your draft date has arrived, I find myself revisiting those decisions taken on your behalf, and the events that have occurred since then.

Over the years, we have discovered that the hopes that we all had for peace, were simply a false facade for the duplicitous dealings of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. We have been forced to endure wars, terror attacks and continued threats to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. We have witnessed how any young man or woman in the IDF uniform has become a target for attack or kidnap by our enemies. All of these things contribute to making your service in the IDF a much more dangerous and risky prospect than was previously the case. In a perverse sort of way, it is also these events that make your service of greater value and importance to Israel and the Jewish people than before.

During the course of your schooling in Israel, you have learned about the numerous attempts to annihilate the Jewish people. You have visited Auschwitz and other death camps in Poland where millions of Jews were put to death, only because they were Jews. You understand very well, the context of the service that you are about to render in the IDF. You know that 6 million Jews would not have lost their lives in the Holocaust if a Jewish army had existed at that time. You also know that new Hitlers arise in every generation. Given the chance, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and others would follow in Hitler's footsteps to try to wipe the Jews off the earth, even in our day and age. There is only one thing that stops them from doing so, and this is the IDF. The IDF not only ensures the safety and survival of Israel and her citizens, it also gives freedom to Jews around the world to exist as Jews in relative safety, freedom and security. As a soldier in the IDF, you will continue to protect all Jews around the world against the numerous enemies that seek to destroy the Jews. You understand the importance of agreeing to serve in order to ensure that the IDF continues to be a strong force and protector of the Jewish people, even in the future.

Even though the big picture is clear and a great motivating force, it does not necessarily make the day-to-day realities of military life any easier. You feel unsure of what the future holds for you, and are not clear what your task in the IDF will be or where you will serve. We feel nervous with you and for you, as you contemplate this great unknown venture ahead of you. We all know that the army cannot necessarily accommodate every individual's needs and requests, and place each person in the position that is best suited to them personally. The army's needs come first, and you will be forced to undertake a role which is not one that you would have chosen for yourself. In spite of all of this, we have watched you approach your military service with tremendous maturity and a positive attitude. You have done all that you can to guarantee that your rights are protected, and to try to find your way to a role that will keep you interested and well-utilised. We have equally seen your willingness to do whatever is needed, even where this does not necessarily match what you want.

Today, as I watch these events before my eyes, and contemplate the next three years in which you will be a soldier in the IDF, I feel a tremendous pride. I am enormously proud of the fact that you and your friends are willing to sacrifice three years of your life to serve your country and your people. At a time when only one in two eligible Israelis are actually being drafted, every man and woman counts for a great deal. You have stood up and been counted. I am extremely proud of the fact that you are determined to undertake a role that will keep you challenged and allow you to make a real contribution. Many have decided that they prefer to lay low and do as little as possible to allow the three years to pass in any uneventful way. This is not for you. You are determined to have a job that will keep you interested, and will allow you to make some use of the tremendous talents and skills that you have. I am proud of the fact that you understand the necessity for you to play your role, at a time when many others are finding ways to escape this.

You have benefited over the past fourteen years from all the good things that Israeli society has to offer its children. You have had the opportunity to walk the streets in relative safety whenever you wish, and to learn the independence that is typical of Israeli youth. You have explored all corners of Israel, and connected to the Jewish homeland that was inhabited by your forefathers. You have celebrated Jewish festivals and Israeli national holidays amongst your fellow Jews. You have explored and developed your technical skills in an environment that is amongst the most technologically advanced in the world. You have represented your country in an international competition, bringing great credit to your country, city, school and family. You have volunteered to help underprivileged youth, and experienced the difficulties that so many people in Israel are suffering. And now you are ready to take this further in making a commitment to safeguard your country and your people.

We wish you success and happiness during the time that you will serve. We hope that you will find a way to make a meaningful contribution, and that will allow you to develop yourself in the process. We pray for your health and safety, in mind and in body, and for the safety of those serving alongside you. No matter where you are or what you are doing, we will be supporting you all the way, and eagerly awaiting the hours that you will be allowed to spend with us at home. May Hashem guide and protect you in all that you do, wherever you may be. I am extremely proud to be your father.

Assad Keeps Fighting, But Cannot Survive

2011-11-21T07:00:00.000+02:00

The uprising in Syria has continued unabated for the past 8 months. Despite the fact that thousands of people have already been killed in the process, the uprising shows no signs of being quelled by the strong-arm tactics adopted by President Bashar al-Assad. Despite Assad fighting the civilian uprising using all military options available to him, he cannot survive this challenge to his leadership. In the interests of preventing further loss of life, Bashar should accept the inevitable as soon as possible and leave office.

The Syrian uprising has progressed in a substantially different way to the uprisings that took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. The biggest difference in Syria is the fact that the regime has managed to survive for as long as 8 months, despite constant protests by the opposition and Syrian civilians over this time. We all know that the long-ruling and well-established governments of Gadaffi, Mubarak and others were unable to survive the attacks that they came under for more than a few months. So what is it about Assad and Syria that has allowed him to survive for this period of time, despite having already killed more than 3,000 civilians (according to the UN) in his attempt to put down the uprising?

Despite the fact that the uprisings in other countries in the region proved to be the catalyst for the demonstrations in Syria, Assad has benefited from the fact other countries have been suffering unrest. This has diverted the attention of the world and the international media elsewhere, while he tries to take care of his own back yard. So far, he has managed to escape the fates that Mubarak and Gadaffi suffered when the world's leaders and media were focused on the events in these countries. While there have been a few reports and international condemnation of events in Syria, these have not been anywhere as directed as those that were directed at Mubarak and Gadaffi before the demise of these two leaders. In Assad's case, there are indications that this is about to change over the coming weeks and months now that Syria has been brought into target by the international community.

In the case particularly of Libya, oil had much to do with the decision by NATO to take an active part in Libya's uprising. There can be no doubt that Gadaffi would probably still have been in power, if it was not for the role played by NATO war planes. Even though oil exploration and export is an important part of the Syrian economy accounting for as much as 25% of the government's income, Syrian oil only makes up about 0.5% of the world's oil production. As such, the world has not looked upon Syria with the same concern for its stability as it did when chaos ensued in Libya. It also means that NATO has no interest in getting involved in Syria. It enjoys little strategic relevance to the world, either in terms of its location or in terms of its production of oil. The only possible point of strategic relevance relating to Syria is its ongoing dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights. It is clear that the world would wish for this issue to be resolved in order to reduce the threat of a war between Syria and Israel which would, undoubtedly, drag other countries in the region into conflict.

Perhaps the most important reason why the world has not come down more harshly on Syria until now, relates to its connections with Iran. Despite not sharing a common border, Syria and Iran have forged extremely close links over the past few years. Ahmadinejad's Iran has proved to be the "catching net" for those countries seeking international links, but which have been rejected by countries in the west. As one of the world's major sponsors of terror, Iran has cast its influence far and wide. It has also stood up to huge criticism by the international community over its nuclear program, thereby showing itself as a leader of the renegade countries which oppose the influence of the USA and other western powers. In this respect, Iran has shown itself to be quite an attractive ally for Turkey, Syria and other countries that are struggling to gain acceptance into international circles. The world has realised that any action against Syria, effectively equates to action against Iran.

On the basis of the close links between Syria and Iran, it is difficult to separate action against Iran's nuclear program from action against Syria's extreme crackdown against protestors. There is a view that says that the world, by escalating Iran on its nuclear program, is trying to divert Ahmadinejad's attention away from Syria in order to allow the world to take a separate position on this. There seems to be an attempt to divide and rule. The Arab League has taken a bold and significant stand against Syria over the past week, by suspending it from the organisation, and threatening to take further diplomatic actions against Syria if Assad does not pull his military forces out of civilian areas and halt the violence. Although there is no love lost between the Arab League and Iran, the Arab League has taken its time in adopting this stand against Syria in view of the fact that it clearly represents taking a stand against Iran at the same time.

Despite Assad's closeness with Ahmadinejad, he will not be able to survive this uprising against his leadership. He is destined to go the same route as Gadaffi, Mubarak and other casualties of the Arab Spring. The question is whether he has learned any lessons from those that have fallen before him. By hanging on to power longer than he should have, Gadaffi issued a death sentence for himself. When his demise came, the hatred against him was such that he was never going to survive being captured by the opposition forces. If Assad is sensible, he still has the opportunity to remove himself from power, thereby saving his life and that of his young family. Continuing to direct his military forces to kill more civilians will make this outcome less likely, and will endanger his life further at that moment when he is driven from power.

Israel is watching carefully to see where events in Syria will lead. The fall of Assad's regime will surely weaken Ahmadinejad's influence in the region. Equally, any action taken against Iran's nuclear program will weaken Syria. Assad has warned that any action taken by the international community against Syria will cause an earthquake in the region. He knows that this is likely to drag Iran into a broader war in the Middle East, and the international community knows this too.

Ahmadinejad, it seems, is the big winner in all of this. Leaders like Assad are running to him like little puppies in order to gain his acceptance and support. He is standing up to the international community with his continued defiance of their calls against his nuclear program, and by continuing to fund international terrorism. His name is on everyone's lips in the international press, and at organisations like the UN and the IAEA. He is the modern-day version of Stalin that all seem to fear. Even Ahmadinejad, however, cannot save Assad's head. Assad will need to decide whether he is prepared to jump, or whether he is waiting to be pushed. The latter option will not be without its consequences for him and his family. Either way, Assad's eventual downfall can only be good for the region and the world by weakening Iran's influence.

Iran Back in the Headlines

2011-11-14T06:00:00.000+02:00

Following an eventful summer which has seen the Arab Spring dominate the headlines, Iran's nuclear program is back in the headlines again. And not too soon. The fact that the Iranians have had a period of peace while world attention has been focused elsewhere, has allowed them to stay under the radar while continuing to build a nuclear bomb. The report delivered by the International Atomic Energy Agency last week confirmed this fact, and the world is no longer in a situation where it is forced to rely on seemingly biased intelligence produced by the Israelis or the Americans.

I have heard it said that Iran has the same right as anybody else to build a nuclear bomb. Nuclear countries, including Israel which continues to maintain nuclear ambiguity, have been accused of double standards by keeping nuclear weapons themselves while trying to deny the Iranians a right to run a nuclear program. The question is why some countries have the right, while others come under huge international pressure to prevent them from building a nuclear arsenal? The answer is fairly simple. It is all down to who has his or her finger on the trigger. It seems obvious that there is a huge difference between allowing the leader of a democratic country to hold the trigger, and allowing the likes of Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gadaffi to have this right. Ahmadinejad has succeeded in clinging onto power in Iran only by rigging elections to cheat his rivals, and by silencing and eliminating those who oppose him. He spends little or no effort dealing with the main issues which confront his country i.e. dealing with economic challenges. Instead, he spends most of his time and energy on the international stage trying to create some sort of an international personality for himself. He never misses an opportunity to threaten the destruction of Israel, the USA and other western countries. Is he the sort of person that we can trust to hold the trigger of a nuclear weapon? I don't think so.

It has been interesting to watch the development of the Iranian nuclear story. Initially, there were many denials about whether Iran has a nuclear program at all. Later, when it was proved beyond a doubt, there was disagreement whether this was focused on civilian or military purposes. In 2007, US intelligence announced that Iran had ended "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003. Last week's IAEA report has shown that statement to be completely inaccurate. And now, even when it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, the world seems to stand by and watch from a distance. Sanctions have proven to be wholly ineffective, and world events such as the Arab Spring and financial crises have served to divert attention elsewhere. This week, when Iran is back in the headlines, a survey conducted in the USA shows that 57% of Americans think that Israel should attack Iran. I know that the Americans are war weary, but surely this seems a crazy expectation? Why should it be Israel's responsibility to protect the world from one crazy, unpredictable mad person who is building a nuclear weapon? It is well understood that Iranian missiles can easily hit American targets, and those of many other countries. The answer may have something to do with the fact that Israel has proved itself capable in these types of attacks before, and has shown sheer audacity in carrying them out on two previous occasions.

As it turns out, the Israeli government also seems to be warming to the idea. It is well-known that PM Netanyahu is a supporter of such an attack. Defence Minister Barak, previously opposed to the idea, now seems to be won around. Indications are that, if a cabinet vote was taken today, the Israeli cabinet would support such a move in principle. The real challenge is to conceive a plan that would succeed in doing the required damage, and not place Israel in mortal danger of her existence at the same time. The Iranians have more than a few Shihab missile launchers trained in Israel's direction. They could do a great deal of damage and result in high numbers of casualties, and would certainly be used to retaliate any strike by Israel on Iran. It is not clear what sort of attack the Israeli government could approve that would achieve the objective of eliminating Iran's nuclear reactors, while not bringing undue harm to Israel and her citizens. This is particularly true under the current circumstances, where every newspaper and TV news station in the world is filled with speculation as to what Israel will do next.

And yet, the IDF has a reputation for being highly inventive as well as daring. The rescue of the hostages under the noses of the terrorists at Entebbe is probably one of the best examples. The destruction of the Iraqi nuclear at Osirak in 1981 is another example. Could it be that the IDF has dreamed up something so unexpected and unusual, that the Iranians will not be ready for it when it hits them? I wouldn't rule this out completely, although the response by Iran when they finally discover what has happened, will be a magnitude larger than Iraq's reaction 30 years ago.

The willingness by Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollahs to fly in the face of world opinion in the construction of the nuclear program, shows that they will stop at nothing. No sanctions, international condemnation nor diplomatic actions will make any difference to what they are doing. The only language that they will understand, is the language of force. This requires a short, sharp strike that will entirely destroy the heart of the program pursued by Iran. It is true that Israel seems the best qualified, and the country with the greatest incentive, to carry out this attack. As a very minimum, I would like to believe that other NATO countries will provide some sort of backup, and give Israel all the help and support that she needs to succeed in this highly risky mission. The consequences of not carrying this out, or not succeeding with such an assignment, seems a much more risky option. But, who will have the guts to take the required decision, and to carry out the mission? If this responsibility lands on Israel, will the support there in the way that it should be? Time will surely tell.

A Spitting Shame

2011-11-06T22:33:00.001+02:00

I was horrified to read the details of the trial of Johannes Martarsian, which took place in the Jerusalem Magistrates Court last week. Martarsian, an Armenian priesthood student, was charged with assault after he punched an ultra-orthodox Jew in the face and made him bleed. The incident took place in Jerusalem's old city after the ultra-Orthodox man spat at Martarsian.

Judge Dov Pollock annulled the indictment against Martarsian and wrote, "putting the defendant on trial for a single blow at a man who spat at his face, after suffering the degradation of being spat on for years while walking around in his church robes is a fundamental contravention of the principles of justice and decency." Fortunately, in this case, the judge had the good sense not to waste any more taxpayer money on proceeding to a trial. Throwing the case out of court was exactly the right response to such a disgraceful situation.

The trial has brought to the fore some of the bad behaviour which is prevalent amongst the ultra-Orthodox community. It seems as though the spitting incident is not an isolated one. Clergymen from the Armenian church who are based in Jerusalem report that they are frequently subject to being spat and cursed at by ultra-Orthodox Jews. One Armenian priest said that he wonders to himself if he will be spat at each time he walks by an ultra-Orthodox Jew in the street. For some priests, it is difficult to simply ignore the repeated incidents of bad behaviour that they are forced to endure. Johannes Martarsian is an example of one who decided to respond rather than to simply turn the other cheek, despite the fact that Armenian priests are encouraged by their church not to respond to these incidents of gross provocation.

The ultra-Orthodox community in Jerusalem has an unfortunate reputation for bad behaviour in many different situations. Women who venture into ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods in Jerusalem like Mea Shearim, and who are not dressed according to the ultra-Orthodox conservative dress code, will already know that they also become spitting targets. Equally, cars driving through religious neighbourhoods on Shabbat have been subject to stoning attacks. This has given rise to the famous T-shirt that has been sold in Jerusalem and purchased by thousands of tourists stating, "I got stoned in Mea Shearim"! Although these types of attacks are unacceptable, there may be some part of a reasonable person that could condone such behaviour where people enter religious neighbourhoods without respecting the norms of the people that live there.

The attacks on the priests seem of a completely different nature. There is no disrespect of the ultra-Orthodox lifestyle involved, and no violation of the norms by which they live. Jerusalem is a city which is open to all religions which wish to be present there. Not only is this a policy which is rigorously adhered to by the Israeli government and the city of Jerusalem, it is also the source of a great deal of tourist Dollars into the city. At times, it seems as though the ultra-Orthodox community are completely divorced from the society in which they live, and their actions cannot be tolerated by other reasonable people. The truth is, that some of their actions are so intolerable, that even those who have grown up within their sects and have become used to their social norms, cannot accept the way in which some situations are dealt with.

The types of insults that these young men give by spitting at others created in G-d's image, have caused me to wonder how they can reconcile this behaviour with their religious beliefs. The Jewish religion believes in 613 mitzvot (precepts) that observers are required to adhere to. They are split into mitzvot concerning man's relationship with his G-d, and mitzvot concerning man's relationship with his fellow-man. Neither group has precedence over the other - they are both equally important. On many occasions such as stoning a car that is transgressing the Shabbat, the justification for the action taken by somebody against his fellow-man is to protect his relationship with his G-d. In light of the fact that these mitzvot do not enjoy precedence, there is a view that says that the transgression against the fellow-man cannot be justified, even if it is an act to protect his relationship with his G-d. The act of spitting at the priests, however, seems to serve no religious purpose at all and has no positive side to it. Rather, it represents an act of unjustified discrimination. So how much less can this be justified in religious terms?

What is even more unfortunate about this sad situation, is the fact that priests say that reports made about these incidents to the police fall on deaf ears. Perhaps it is because the police feel that it is impossible to catch the perpetrators and bring them to justice, that no action is taken. It is also fair to say that Jerusalem's police force has its hands full with high-level security threats which it is required to take care of on an ongoing basis. Whatever the reason for the lack of action, it is sends an entirely wrong message about the acceptability of this behaviour.

The ultra-Orthodox community present themselves as representing all that is good when acting in strict observance of the Torah. Too often, however, the pursuit of individual points of observance causes the individual to lose the wood for the trees. There seems to be no broader perspective, or ability to see the bigger picture. This is extremely damaging to the standing of the ultra-Orthodox community in the world in which they are forced to live. The time has come for concerted action to be taken to change the bad behaviour. The yeshivot (institutions of religious learning) need to be responsible for teaching their students about the unacceptability of spitting at others. The police on the streets need to keep their eyes open for such incidents, and act upon them immediately.

Jerusalem is a city that is open to people of all religions to visit and to live in. While it serves as the capital of the Jewish State of Israel, the government has undertaken that the city will be open to all religions for tourism, learning and worship. This means that it is not the private domain of ultra-Orthodox Jews, even though it is their religion's holiest city. There should be no reason why priests who have come to Jerusalem for the purpose of furthering their religious studies and experiences, should be subject to any sort of bad behaviour by ultra-Orthodox Jews or anybody else. The time has come to take action to stop this intolerance and insulting behaviour.

Why Should Israel Help Fatah?

2011-10-31T07:00:00.000+02:00

The prisoner swap deal which saw Gilad Shalit released, played right into the hands of Hamas. The prisoners who were released, as well as those set for release in the second stage of the deal, are names given by Hamas. At least for now, Hamas has gained public relations points in the Palestinian world. The organisation has shown itself to be able to stand up to Israel, and to extract value for the Palestinian street despite Israel’s statements that this would never happen. At the same time, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party has achieved a resounding failure. Abbas returned from his visit to the United Nations empty-handed following his application to the UN to admit Palestine as a full member. This situation has brought some Israelis to call for a “gesture” to Fatah, to try to dilute the way in which Hamas has been strengthened by these events.

For some time now, Israel has been playing a game of trying to weaken Hamas by strengthening Fatah. Throughout the time that Mahmoud Abbas has been president, and even dating back to the days when Yasser Arafat held the position, Israel has been taking steps to promote Fatah’s interests in order to help its standing amongst Palestinians whose loyalties are split between Fatah and Hamas. The reason for this is that Fatah has demonstrated itself to be more willing to enter into a dialogue with Israel, interpreted by Israel to mean it represents a possibility that it may reach a negotiated peace agreement. Hamas, on the other hand, has remained steadfast in its objectives of trying to destroy Israel, and not agreeing to negotiate. As ironic as it may seem, Fatah is simply the better of the two evils, and hence Israel’s attempts to promote its cause.

Despite the fact that it has tried to present itself as a genuine political party, Fatah has never really given up on its terror activities, even while continuing to sit at the negotiating table. This was particularly true in the days of Yasser Arafat, who lied unashamedly about giving up on violence with Israel while continuing to orchestrate terror activities in the background. Abbas has seemed more serious about foregoing the terror route, but has still not completely given up on this or eradicated it from his people and the territory under his control. The fact that Hamas has never agreed to forego violence against Israel has presented greater appeal to the Palestinians. Hamas’s strategy is to escalate violence against Israel and never agree to recognise or negotiate with the government of the Jewish state, until it achieves the destruction of the State of Israel.

Israel’s response to this situation has been to continue trying to negotiate with Fatah in order to try to extract greater security for Israelis, while responding to Hamas’s violence and terror using military solutions. It is in Israel’s interest that the Palestinian street will embrace the route of negotiations and support Fatah, while rejecting the route of violence pursued by Hamas. It is for this reason that Israel has been trying to prop up support for Fatah over the years by allowing it to show fruits for its strategy of negotiating with Israel. Negotiations are long-winded affairs (especially in the Middle East), and show few results along the way. This has proved to be tiresome for the Palestinians, who are eager to see instant results or some evidence of the fact that their chosen route has short-term advantages. The Hamas-led campaign of violence has succeeded in bringing this to the people in a much more blatant way. Palestinians have rejoiced to see rockets destroying Israeli homes and threatening Israeli lives. The perceived success of standing up to the might of the IDF has been a rallying force for Palestinians. The fact that Fatah succeeded in opening a road or removing an Israeli checkpoint after a lengthy negotiation, seems somehow less exciting and not the same level of achievement. To counter this perception, Israel has acted to release Fatah prisoners remain incarcerated in Israeli jails to so that it can be associated with benefits of negotiations.

With Hamas’s standing on the up and up after its success in securing the release of hundreds of its prisoners as part of the exchange for Gilad Shalit, there are those who feel that these events could serve to alienate Fatah and reduce its standing amongst Palestinians. Some Israeli politicians have called for a release of Fatah prisoners as a gesture to Mahmoud Abbas to try to redress the situation. Abbas himself, desperate for any success he can lay his hands on, has mentioned the fact that former prime minister Ehud Olmert offered a release of Fatah prisoners in the event that Gilad Shalit was released. Olmert has confirmed this verbal undertaking, although I suspect that the promise was made on the basis of the expectation that Abbas would actually do something to help to secure Gilad’s release.

In truth, I do not understand why Israel would choose to release Fatah prisoners at this stage. At the time that the final details for Gilad’s release were being negotiated, Abbas was at the UN in New York seeking full membership for the Palestinians. This action by Abbas served to undermine the entire notion of a negotiated settlement. Abbas’s tactic is to get a seat in the UN, and then approach the UN to grant him and his people an independent homeland. If he succeeds, he will achieve this without having to make any concessions that are inherent in a negotiated deal with Israel. This is surely a massive snub to Israel’s efforts to help Fatah over the years.

Now that Gilad has been released and, along with him, hundreds of Hamas prisoners, Abbas is feeling left out and alienated. The problem is that he is responsible, at least in part, for his own situation. His continuing refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and to make the required concessions at the negotiating table, and his acts to try to unilaterally declare an independent state have not helped his cause. They have damaged his standing on the Palestinian street, and with his Israeli counterparts. There should be no reason in the world for Israel to reward him with a release of prisoners.

Israelis should never be duped into believing that Fatah is a true ally of Israel or a friend the Jewish people. It just so happens that we have a common enemy, Hamas, which causes us to come together in opposition to the threat that Hamas presents. As was evidenced by his recent actions at the UN, Abbas will use any opportunity to go behind Israel’s back and pursue his own agenda at Israel’s expense. The continued refusal by Fatah to remove the clause in their constitution calling for the destruction of the State of Israel is evidence of the fact that Fatah’s true intentions may be concealed to the world, and that it may be playing a double-faced game with Israel. While continuing to pursue a path that will ultimately bring peace and security to her citizens, Israel is forced to respond with caution and suspicion to everything that Abbas does.

The time has come for Israel to treat Fatah with a great deal more suspicion and contempt. While it is acknowledged that having a Fatah government in the West Bank is preferable to one controlled by Hamas, this is still not a bed of roses for Israel. Gestures by Israel to Fatah should be matched by gestures on Fatah’s part to Israel. This is the only way to ensure that Fatah will value Israeli gestures. The time for freebies should be over.

Gilad is Finally Home, But the Controversy Rages On

2011-10-23T20:00:00.000+02:00

Israel experienced its highest-ever TV ratings over a one day period last week on Tuesday, when captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit finally returned home. The nation was glued to its TV sets as we watched events unfold over the day, finally culminating in a weak-looking Gilad returning to Israel and to the waiting arms of his family. He had spent 5 years and 4 months held in captivity by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Representatives from Hamas have made public statements about how well Gilad was treated. It is claimed that he was well fed during the years of his captivity, and allowed access to media including Israeli TV and radio broadcasts. Although they have also claimed that he was not subject to torture at their hands, Gilad's father Noam has expressed doubt about this. He does, however, concur with the Hamas statements that Gilad was treated better in the latter years of his captivity. Noam's comments allow us to believe that the first years were not easy, and may well have included torture. The facts on the day of the prisoner transfer, however, speak for themselves. It was difficult not to notice the stark difference in the conditions of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released by Israel, when compared to that of Gilad. The Palestinian prisoners looked well-fed and physically in good health as they sat on buses and smoked while waiting for the exchange deal to proceed. They had been granted access to members of their family and international organisations as required by the Geneva Convention. The same could not be said for Gilad, who walked with difficulty after being kept away from daylight for most of his years in captivity. Neither his family nor members of the International Committee of the Red Cross were allowed access to him for more than 5 years, despite repeated requests.

As Gilad tries to get to know his family and friends again at his home in Mitzpe Hila, the debate rages through the pages of the Israeli press and around the world about whether the prisoner exchange deal that secured his release was justified. With 477 Palestinian prisoners already released, and a further 550 slated for release in 2 months' time as part of the deal, there are those in Israel who feel that the price paid for the return of just one prisoner was too high. This view is even further enhanced when considering the crimes committed by those who have been set free. The list of released prisoners includes murderers and terrorists who collectively succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent Israelis. The incidents in which these attacks took place range from the detonation of a bomb in pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem to an explosion at a hotel where thousands celebrated the Passover holiday, and more. It is perfectly understandable that the family members of the victims of these attacks are suffering anguish as a result of these killers being set free. There are those who believe that the release of these terrorists, many of whom have vowed to return to their old murderous ways, increases the security risk to Israeli civilians. There are many naysayers who are literally waiting for the next wave of terror attacks to hit Israel in order to justify their resistance to prisoner exchange deal. Yet others are opposed to the deal because they believe that it represents capitulation to terrorists, and encourages them to kidnap Israeli soldiers or civilians in the future in order to secure similar deals. This prisoner exchange agreement, they say, shows a weakness on the part of the Israeli government and her citizens.

Most of the points for and against the exchange deal are fairly well-known, and have enjoyed broad discussion in the Israeli and international press. There are, however, additional considerations that have come to my mind, and which are perhaps less widely discussed. The first point is that the concept of a prisoner exchange deal of this nature is not new. The truth is that Israel has been doing such deals for many years. The only thing that has differed from one deal to another, are the names and the numbers. Over the past 30 years, Israel has released some 7,000 Palestinian prisoners and released the remains of many more. In exchange Israel has received 19 Israelis and the remains of 8 others. Looking back over the years, I don't believe that this has weakened Israel in any way, or shown that it is capitulating to terrorism. On the contrary, Israel has increased its defences against terrorists in a variety of different ways to strengthen its opposition to the vile actions taken against innocent civilians. At times, Israel has employed fairly extreme anti-terror defences, including a policy of targeted killings against those orchestrating terror activities or carrying them out. This surely demonstrates that Israel is not getting soft on terrorists. While agreeing to enter into prisoner swaps on the one hand, Israel has shown itself to be extremely tough on terror in many other ways.

Instead of interpreting exchange deals as showing weakness to terrorists, it is my belief that Israel is showing strength by adhering to basic principles and values which are fundamental in the Jewish religion. These same principles are the same ones that most reasonable people around the world would identify with. These are the principles of attaching value to the life of each and every citizen of Israel, particularly those who have fallen into captivity during the course of serving in the country's army. This makes an important and powerful statement, not only to those serving in the army and their families, but also to our enemies. Often, a strong set of values and principles is more important than military strength. Armies around the world will tell you that it is tougher to fight against an enemy which has strong fundamental beliefs in its cause and in its values, than an enemy that does not. This has not gone unnoticed in the Arab press. A reporter writing in Abu Dhabi's English language Gulf News wrote, "It is not a secret at all that the value of an Arab person in the stock-exchange of Arab regimes is sort of nil .... Have you ever seen an Arab regime trying to get its captives out of Israeli prisons? Forget about it. Most Arab regimes have no problem at all letting their nationals die in Israeli jails." I believe that such actions do not serve to strengthen a society. It is my view that this attitude shows greater weakness than being prepared to stay to true to a country's citizens, even if this means having to release terrorists.

Israel has a few weak spots in its history of valuing and securing the release of its citizens held by enemies. Three soldiers, Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz were captured by Syrian authorities in their tank in the Golan Heights in 1982. They have not been heard from since then, and are presumed dead. No evidence has been produced to support this view, however, and the three are listed as missing in action. A similar story is the one of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad, which captured the attention, imagination and sympathy of the world. Navigator Arad bailed out of his plane over Lebanon, and was captured by the enemy in 1986. He was known to have been alive as late as 1988, after having been "sold" by Hezbollah to the Iranians. Israeli attempts to free Arad came to nothing, and there is a strong suspicion that he died during the course of his captivity. For 25 years, his wife and family have been unable to move on with their lives as there is no official pronouncement of life or death. Officially, he is missing in action. These are stains on Israel's record, and all Israelis know this.

Every nation at war is called upon to make tough decisions. Sometimes, these decisions involve the possibility of "sacrificing" soldiers or other individuals in the interests of a greater good, or the safety of a large number of others. In the case of Gilad Shalit, I think that any decision to sacrifice him in exchange for keeping 1,027 terrorists in prison would have been one of the toughest for anybody to make. In due course, we think we will know the price of not sacrificing him, but it is still difficult to say that any terror activities that may occur over the coming months and years would not have occurred if the 1,027 had remained in prison. It is my belief that there are enough "terrorists in waiting" out there to make the impact that the 1,027 may make, look insignificant.

On balance, given the alternatives between another Ron Arad situation or the current Gilad Shalit situation, the choice for me is an easy one. We are obliged to value the life that we know that we can rescue. In this respect, the government has made exactly the right decision. We are also obliged to ensure that those who are released, are not allowed to cause any further damage or bloodshed. I am sure that the IDF is on a close look-out for this. And even though many will interpret the release of the terrorists is to be an insult to the memories of those who were killed at their hands, it is really a clear statement of the value of life. Even if it is only one.

It is my wish that Gilad will enjoy a quick and full recovery to everyday life, and that he and his family will enjoy many years of health and happiness together. It is equally my wish that the memories of those who were brutally murdered by terrorists, will be for a blessing. Perhaps, above all, the fact that our society can hold this type of debate in an open and honest way, is a great demonstration of our democracy at work to build a just, caring and sensitive society. Am Yisrael Chai - The People of Israel live!

Gilad To Be Released - The Agony With The Ecstasy

2011-10-16T18:20:00.002+02:00

The mood across Israel was changed in a dramatic fashion on Tuesday last week when the news was made public during the early evening that an agreement had been reached with Hamas for the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. After 5 long years during which Hamas had allowed no access to him at all, not even by human rights organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross, it seems as though Gilad Shalit will finally be on his way home.

Of course, the agreement that was finally struck by David Meidan and the Israeli negotiating team comes at a high cost to Israel. The objective behind the kidnapping in the first instance, was to extract a high price from Israel by insisting that prisoners in Israeli jails be released in exchange for any agreement to release Shalit. This is exactly what they have achieved, even though it has taken more than 5 long years to finally reach the agreement. Israel will release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in order to secure the freedom of one IDF soldier. Many of these prisoners are serving life sentences, and have "blood on their hands" for murdering innocent Israeli civilians. Among those due for release are those who planned the Sbarro and Moment restaurant bombings in Jerusalem, those who planned the Seder night bombing at the Park Hotel in Netanya and those who planned the kidnap of Gilad Shalit. There are also many others who were involved in numerous bus bombings, and others who have committed similar heinous crimes. Along with the euphoria of knowing that Gilad will finally be returned to his parents and to the people of Israel, have come searching questions about the terms of his release.

As we sat in our Sukkah on Wednesday evening celebrating the festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles), the conversation inevitably turned to the deal that was struck for Gilad's release. There were some sitting around the table who felt that the price was too high, and that the deal should never have been done on these terms. All the old concerns and issues were raised to justify why this deal endangers Israel's security going forward. One friend said that he thought that the prisoner exchange shows a weakness in Israeli society that we are prepared to contemplate a deal that will return only one of our soldiers for more than a thousand of theirs. It is his view that our one soldier should effectively be sacrificed in order to protect the security of Israel going forward. The welfare of one soldier should not be allowed to destabilise the security of the entire State of Israel by placing convicted murderers and terrorists back on the streets. This friend has a daughter currently serving her two years in the IDF. When I asked how he would respond if the soldier in question was Heaven forbid his own daughter, he brought me the story of Joseph Stalin who refused to accept a deal with the Germans for a prisoner exchange to return his own son, Yacov, from captivity whilst a soldier in the Red army. Yacov ultimately died while being held by the Germans. My friend's point is that the state is larger than any of its individuals, and that the government should behave accordingly.

As expected, the prisoner exchange has come under a great deal of resistance from the families of the victims who were maimed and murdered at the hands of the prisoners due for release. Many have already made it clear how insulted they feel by the release of the murderers of their loved ones. We can all understand their pain, and the fact that they feel that this insults the memories of their dearly departed. The government went out of its way to arrest and imprison the perpetrators of these horrible attacks. Now, it seems that all is being thrown away by the prisoner exchange deal. This view would be entirely valid if our circumstances were normal. Unfortunately, like so many other things in Israel and the Middle East, things are never straightforward.

My view is that we should do all that we can to respect the memories of those who have fallen in the line of duty protecting their homeland, and those whose lives have been taken by those seeking to destroy our country and our people. While doing so, however, we are also forced to confront the new realities and circumstances that arise each day. I think that the strength of our society lies in the fact that we do value each individual as if he is the only one. While I agree that the price seems unbalanced when we exchange 1 for more than 1,000, the message that it sends to our serving soldiers and their families can only help to strengthen the resolve and the strength of our military, and of our society as a whole. Our security forces can operate in the knowledge that they are more than simply a number, and that the government will do all that is required to protect them, even under the most extreme situation. The argument that, through this prisoner exchange, the government is releasing murderers and terrorists to kill and maim again is valid. The security services have said that they can take care of this situation, and I believe that there are so many potential terrorists and murderers in the West Bank and Gaza, that the release of this motley crew does not significantly increase the risk. And while the exchange deal does reinforce what the terrorists already knew when they kidnapped Gilad, which is that Israel values each of its individual soldiers and will be prepared to strike an unbalanced prisoner exchange deal to release him, I don't believe that this dramatically increases the risk of other soldiers being kidnapped in the future. This is because the risk has been at the highest level for many years, and the fact that 5 years have passed without another soldier being kidnapped is not because they have not tried. Regular attempts have been made to kidnap soldiers, and we should expect that such attempts will continue.

Israel is forced to exist under extreme and severe circumstances. The risk of a terror or missile attack against her civilians is ever-present. The act of rounding up those who have brought death and destruction on Israelis in the past is more about justice than it is about reducing the risk levels. It is clear that removing such individuals from a situation where they can repeat their crimes does give some increased level of security. I am not convinced, however, that arresting these individuals, even when related to 1,000 people, serves to dramatically improve Israel's security. Apparently the Shin Bet security agency agrees with this assessment, and has given its approval to the prisoner exchange. The Shin Bet chief Yoram Cohen described the prisoner exchange deal as "a bad deal, but the only one available to us". This sums it up for many in Israel. We would prefer not to have to release criminals back onto the street, but the alternative of not doing so is worse.

The Israeli government last night released the names of the first group of prisoners set for release. This is to allow the 48 hour period that the law requires for any legal challenges to the prisoner exchange before it goes ahead. Objections to the exchange have already been filed with the High Court of Justice, and the court will hear these petitions during the course of today. Assuming that the court gives its approval to the exchange, it is expected that Gilad Shalit will return to Israel during the course of Tuesday. For one family and for many Israelis, this will be a moment of great joy and the ultimate fulfilment of the government's responsibility to each of its citizens. For many families, it will reopen painful wounds and memories. Our joy is tempered by their pain, and the sacrifice that these fmailies have made will never be ignored or forgotten. Unfortunately, nothing can return their loved ones, and it is my hope that they will find a way to feel the joy of the Shalit family and other Israelis. We wait expectantly for the moment when Gilad will emerge, alive and well, into the arms of his family and the Israeli nation.

The Price That is Not Worth Paying

2011-10-10T23:00:00.000+02:00

A new and unwelcome phenomenon has been taking hold in Israel over the past few months. The phenomenon involves attacks on Arab targets in what has become known as "price tag" attacks. The name "price tag" comes from graffiti sprayed at the attack sites by the perpetrators, and that uses these words. This all adds up to an attack in revenge for other events that have taken place. The attacks that have taken place to date largely involve damage or destruction to property, and have been attributed to extremist religious Jews who have been taking the law into their own hands.

It is true that the Middle East is an extremely volatile part of the world. It is also true that we see behaviour that would never be tolerated in other parts of the world, but here is somehow regarded as acceptable. Despite this fact, the government of the State of Israel insists that the rule of law should prevail. This means, amongst other things, that individuals do not have the right to summarily judge and punish others. There is an established court system for this purpose, and individuals do not have the right to replace the court system in any way.

The price tag revenge attacks arise out of a frustration that almost all Israelis feel. This stems from the fact that we seem to be in an almost constant state of war, and under continuous attack from terrorist groups based in the Arab countries that surround Israel. Despite the IDF's efforts to keep us safe and their many successes in preventing attacks from taking place, the threat under which we live remains constant. Some Israelis feel frustrated that Israel insists on behaving correctly and respects the human rights even of those who seek to destroy us, while Hamas violates every possible human right while holding Gilad Shalit in captivity. This frustration still does not justify taking the law into one's own hands. Certain groups, particularly religious groups, feel that the Israeli court system is stacked against them. They believe that the courts pass judgement against them because there is too little recognition of the values and frameworks which guide their lives. Even this cannot be used as a justification for taking the law into your own hands. Even though there are many who will have sympathy for these frustrations, nothing and nobody is above the law.

The recent events that have particularly provoked price tag attacks have included the deaths a few weeks ago of Asher Palmer and his infant son in a car accident near Hebron. It is reported that the car accident was caused by Arabs throwing stones at the car. The government's actions to dismantle unlawful settler outposts in the West Bank have also provoked price tag attacks. It should be emphasized that it is a small group of individuals who are involved in these attacks, and that they do not in any way represent the views of most Israelis in the actions that they have taken. In fact, some religious Jewish groups have already begun fundraising to replace the holy books and repair damage done to the mosque.

When a mosque was burnt down in the Bedouin village of Tuba Sangariye destroying many religious books in the fire, Israel reacted with outrage. The exact reason for choosing this village for a price-tag attack was not clear, but the response was clear. This type of attack cannot be justified in a country that respects the rule of law. President Shimon Peres and both chief rabbis of Israel visited the village to show solidarity, and to demonstrate that the establishment does not condone or tolerate this behaviour. Over the period of Yom Kippur, Judaism's holiest day, Christian and Muslim graves in Jaffa and Bat Yam were vandalised. The irony of such an act over Yom Kippur hardly needs to be highlighted. There are those who equate attacks on cemeteries and places of religious worship with the attacks that were carried out on Jewish targets during the period of the Holocaust. Now, it seems that Jews are resorting to similar tactics to make their own point. The Israeli government has rightly resolved to crack down on this behaviour, and has increased the police's presence in areas considered to be targets. There is some speculation that the Yom Kippur vandals were not from extremist religious groups, but were rather hooligans looking to take advantage of the climate that has been created by the price-tag attackers. Whatever the truth may be, none of this behaviour can be tolerated.

As much as Israel is often a country under siege due to the constant security threats to her citizens, we are forced to protect our freedom and democracy for law-abiding citizens. This freedom and democracy also extends to Arab Israelis, even when members of their clan or family are not abiding by the law. Besides the negative effect that such behaviour has on Israel's standing in the international community, it has a greater negative impact upon ourselves. We need to ensure that we are not dragged into behaving as badly as our enemies have behaved towards us over the years, no matter how tempting this prospect may be.

Unfortunately, the recent price-tag attacks are evidence that we have not quite begun the year on the correct foot. We have a great deal to do in order to take care of the way that we respond to provocations by our enemies. Reacting in the incorrect way could potentially draw us into consequences that are more damaging than any good that could come out of this. Allowing individuals to continue to take the law into their own hands is clearly unacceptable. The price on this price tag is one that we do not wish to pay.

New Year's Dreams

2011-10-02T15:10:00.000+02:00

With the Jewish New Year occurring immediately after the UN General Assembly meeting in New York as it just did, it made me take stock of Israel's current situation compared to last year (which seems like only yesterday). In particular, I thought about where we were in our attempts to make peace with our Palestinian neighbours at this time last year, and the year before that. As is the custom at the time of the new year, I thought about the future and what could realistically be achieved over the course of the next year.

The truth is that the peacemaking efforts have remained stagnant for many years. Israeli leaders have come and gone, and a Palestinian leader has gone and another one come. We have tried peace conferences in Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, Wye Plantation, Ramallah and Jerusalem. And yet, the obstacles have not moved even one iota. We are suffering with precisely the same issues as we have suffered with over the years, some of which seem to be beyond solution.

I heard a good piece of advice from our local Rabbi over the new year period about how to set behaviour patterns for the forthcoming year. He said that we should close our eyes, and dream of where we wish to be in a year's time from now. We should think about the things that we would wish to achieve by then, and then think about the stage that precedes that achievement. By continuing to think about the step which precedes each stage, we can finally return back to our present situation with a roadmap of how to reach our goal. Although this sounds good in theory and a little more difficult to implement in practice, the concept is a good one. It is important to close your eyes and dream a little, and to set objectives which can serve to guide you in your work and private life.

While thinking about all of this, I spent a few moments considering whether Mahmoud Abbas may have done some of his own dreaming for the Palestinian people which he leads. Maybe the time of the Jewish New Year is not exactly when you would expect him to be considering this matter, but perhaps he would do so after Ramadan or on Ras as-Sana al-Hijreya, the Islamic New Year which falls at the end of November this year. If he was to close his eyes and dream of what he would like to see for himself and his people at the same time next year, what would this be? If we are to believe his public statements, this would be an independent Palestinian state. Clearly there are details such as the borders and capital of this state, but the "big picture" dream, we are told, is the Palestinian state. This is what he left us believing following his actions and speech at the United Nations. If this is true, the answer is in his hands. The Israeli government has agreed to it, and the sponsors in the form of the US and other members of the Quartet have also accepted this point. All that is required for him to get there, is for him to make a few concessions and to compromise by dropping the detailed demands that he is making, in return for which the Palestinian state will be his.

The problem is that the details seem to be more important than the big picture objective. He will not accept a Palestinian state unless its borders comply with specific conditions, or until Jerusalem is handed to him as its capital amongst some of his demands. Although the Jewish people have prayed for more than 2,000 years for their return to Zion, to Jerusalem as the holiest city in the religion, the Jewish state existed for 19 years with Jewish access to only the western side of the city. This meant that the holiest sites, including that upon which the holy temple once stood, were out of bounds to Jews. This fact (and the small issue of being attacked on all sides by Arab countries in the region) did not deter the Jews from establishing Israel as the Jewish state. The truth is that the objective of having an independent Jewish homeland was bigger than any of the details, no matter how important. I do not get the same feeling that the Palestinians have the same objective. Somehow, the details are playing a more important role than the headline objective.

My new hope is that his experiences at the UN a couple of weeks ago would somehow change Abbas's approach to the peace negotiations. Maybe, by some miracle, Abbas may decide that he needs to acknowledge Israel's position as a Jewish country in order to make progress with his own objectives? I am sure that he understands the need to make this concession, and how this may give him the state that he claims to yearn for. His refusal to acknowledge this critical point is extremely concerning. Is it possible that holding on to his position is more important than getting his independent state?

There is a real danger that the inhabitants of the Middle East have forgotten how to dream, and are forced to be reactive in confronting daily emergencies. This would a great pity. In the case of Mahmoud Abbas, it is not clear whether he has stopped dreaming, or whether the dreams that he is communicating to the outside world are not the same ones as the those that he is dreaming. Under the current circumstances, his dreams will not be fulfilled, no matter what they are.

My new year’s dream is that Gilad Shalit will be withus and his family, for him to celebrate the new year in freedom next year. I also dream that Mahmoud Abbas may change his dreams to create the possibility for real peace, although this may be expectingtoo much. It is my wish that you will all realise your dreams in the new year, and that our nation's dream of living in peace alongside our neighbours with mutual respect will be realised. Shana Tova.

Palestinian Attempt to Hijack the UN Leads Nowhere

2011-09-25T21:00:00.000+03:00

All eyes were focused last week on the opening of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in New York. For weeks prior to this event, the Palestinians had dominated the international press with stories of taking a unilateral declaration of independence to the UN for a vote. Even though the events of last week turned many minds back to the fateful vote by the same organisation in 1947 which paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland, the two situations could not be more stark in their differences.

After the build-up that took place to last week's meetings, it all ended with something of an anti-climax. There was no vote on the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. There was not even a vote to admit the Palestinians as full members of the UN. Ultimately, the best that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was able to do, was to submit his application to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon for full membership of the UN by the Palestinians. This application will need to be approved by the UN Security Council, and US President Barack Obama has already said that the USA will veto this vote if necessary. As a compromise, the Palestinians may be able to upgrade their current status of membership of the UN from an "entity" to a "non-member state" in UN speak. This requires only a vote by the general assembly without the need for approval by the Security Council, and is likely to be approved with some ease. The benefits of this upgrade for the Palestinians, however, seem marginal.

Despite the fact that all of the hype resulted in very little action, there were a few important results that came out of the events of last week. The first major outcome was the way in which President Barack Obama behaved when he was truly put on the spot. Obama has distanced himself from the peace process since assuming office nearly 3 years ago. He has yet to pay a visit to Israel or to the Palestinian Authority area, and has preferred to focus his time and energies on the many other issues currently confronting the USA. Despite his statements about the importance of resolving Middle East conflict, and his attempts to set timetables within which this issue should be resolved, he has yet to devote any significant chunk of his time to make this happen. When he was backed into a corner last week and forced to decide whether the Security Council should approve full membership for the Palestinians, he knew that exercising the USA's veto is the only answer. This was accompanied by a speech which was one of the most pro-Israeli addresses made by a US president at the UN for many years, and which surprised supporters and detractors alike. In his speech, he told the story of the terror and hatred that Israelis have been forced to live with over many years, and he recognised Israel's right to exist as the Jewish homeland. This was perhaps the most critical statement, as it is the point which currently presents the main stumbling block to renewing peace talks.

The address to the general assembly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was equally an important event during the week. Despite his many faults, Netanyahu has consistently shown his ability to present Israel's position on the international stage. Once again, he did this with great confidence and conviction. In particular, he addressed those people who feel that Israel should show greater flexibility in its negotiating position. There are those who believe that Israel should be playing to the "Palestinian moderates", by making concessions to give them greater position and power amongst their Palestinian colleagues. In theory, these moderates will lead the peace agreement with Israel, and lead the Palestinians to a more moderate position. In refuting this position, Netanyahu reminded the general assembly of the many concessions that Israel has already made in the interests of pursuing peace. The most substantial of these concessions, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with all the implications of uprooting the lives of many thousands of people, has served to distance peace rather than bring it closer. After handing the keys of Gaza to PA President Abbas, he proceeded to lose control of it to the radicals of Hamas. Israel has been forced to endure constant rocket fire from the areas which were previously under Israeli control ever since. If this is a model for making concessions, it is not particularly successful and does create much of a precedent for future concessions.

Overall, the right conclusion was reached at the UN. This conclusion is that the UN cannot act as a replacement for the peace process. The UN cannot grant a state to people who are unwilling to come to the negotiating table, because they refuse to recognise the most fundamental rights of their neighbour. Until the Palestinians recognise the rights of Israel to exist, and to exist as a Jewish state, there can be no further discussion. Without this recognition, there will always be the suspicion (or maybe a confirmation) that the Palestinians seek a state of their own alongside Israel only in order to use this as a springboard to destroy the Jewish state completely. Hamas, along with their Hezbollah and Iranian friends, have not been shy to make this point clear in public. Perhaps this is Mahmoud Abbas's little secret.

The difference between the UN vote of 1947 and the UN non-vote of 2011 is perhaps best reflected by the responses of the general public awaiting the outcomes. Jews were dancing in the streets of Jerusalem, across then-Palestine and around the world. In contrast, Palestinians lined up across the West Bank with stones which were thrown at Israeli security patrols, and burning posters of President Barack Obama and Israeli flags. Israeli military was on high alert in the south of the country after a concrete threat of a terror attack in the area.

While the UN has in the past been a very unhappy hunting ground for Israel and Jews around the world, these two occasions stand out as crucially arriving at the correct conclusion. Each, for its own different reason, will take its place in Jewish history as a critical moment in time.

Terrorism, Short Memories and Lack of Empathy

2011-09-19T20:00:00.000+03:00

Every year at this time, our media is bombarded with scenes of commemoration ceremonies at Ground Zero, and across America for the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks. We are shown movies and documentaries about the events that took place on that fateful day, new revelations that have come to light since then and security arrangements that are now in place which have changed America and the world. This year, which marked the 10th anniversary of America's largest terror attack on home ground, had greater significance and relevance as the new water feature at Ground Zero was finally opened to replace the buildings that once stood there.

At the time that the attacks took place on American soil ten years ago, there were more than a few Israelis who thought that the American people may view Israel in a different light in view of the terror attacks that they had experienced on their own soil. For the first time in many years, the Americans were made to feel the threat and personal injury that Israelis have been forced to suffer since independence in 1948, and even before that. There was a feeling among Israelis that Americans would be able to empathize with the Israeli people, and perhaps even view the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians in a slightly different way. Perhaps there would not be such great pressure from the Americans and the rest of the international community to force Israel to negotiate with the same group that is using terror to try to destroy the country. Further terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bali and other locations raised this expectation even further. Maybe these nations would also show greater understanding for Israel's fight for existence against these terror activities.

For a time, it felt as though the balance did swing a little towards greater sympathy for Israel's position. Politicians and ordinary citizens of countries around the world showed some level of understanding for the extreme and unnatural circumstances under which Israeli citizens are forced to live while terrorists continuously attempt to blow up buses, restaurants and other public areas, or launch missiles towards residential neighbourhoods where children sit in school classrooms. This sympathy and understanding seemed to evaporate almost as quickly as it arose, and things went back to the same old situation that was in place prior to 9/11. Instead, a level of self-pity replaced these feelings, with people feeling sorry for themselves that they were suddenly forced to suffer with increased levels of security at airports, train stations and other public areas. And when the opportunity has arisen to associate with Israel and to hold the Palestinians to account for their terror acts against Israelis, suddenly the feeling of identification is forgotten. The identification with another nation that has also been subjected to unforgiveable acts of terror, initiated by the same groups as those attacking the rest of the free world, is somehow completely missing. The previous status quo has been replaced by a new one, and people have returned right back to where they were before.

Later this week on Friday, the Palestinians plan to bring a vote to the UN General Assembly requesting greater recognition for the Palestinian people. It is not quite clear what the nature of the Palestinians' request will be, and whether they will be requesting full membership of the UN General Assembly, or whether they will be going as far as requesting the UN to authorise the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Whatever it is, more than 100 countries have lined themselves up to support the Palestinian initiative at the UN. This is how the world is responding to an organisation that has constantly acted as a terror organisation over the years. Although much of the world's ire is directed towards Israel for the current hiatus in the peace process, it remains on the record that the Palestinians have still not removed the clause in the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The current breakdown in talks is down to the Palestinians not agreeing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Surely this should prevent them from coming to the UN with their application.

An article in an Israeli newspaper today referred to the current Palestinian initiative at the UN, and Hamas' position on this process. Hamas has not supported the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority's intention to make an application at the UN, bringing to the surface many internal disagreements between the various Palestinian factions on this issue. It was written today that Hamas would change their position and support the UN initiative, as long as it was agreed that there would be no acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist. It astonishes me that the international community would even think about debating an issue like this under these circumstances. Before the UN admits a new entity to its hallowed halls, it has a responsibility to protect and defend the rights of the existing members. This responsibility is not being fulfilled in the current circumstances.

The events of 9/11 and other attacks of terror remain close to the families of the victims, and to the various countries who suffered from them. There is much sympathy from Israelis for the victims of these events and their families. Who knows more what suffering these people are enduring than those who have suffered it themselves. The price paid in human casualties and the attack on their freedom will not be forgotten in a hurry. This unfortunately does not translate into a feeling of identification and understanding from these countries for other countries who suffer from this assault on their freedom in a more extreme way i.e. by an attack on their very right to exist. Despite the intention by some countries to oppose the UN initiative this week, it somehow seems that this is a battle that Israel is destined to fight largely on her own. Any agreement at the UN later this week to upgrade the diplomatic status of the Palestinians will be clear evidence of this.

Israel's Half Million Man March

2011-09-11T12:00:00.000+03:00

It started with a call for a million Israelis to take to the streets in a demonstration that would serve as the culmination of the social protests that have been taking place for the past two months. For a country with a population of only 7 million, this was always going to be a tall order. Ultimately, the call for a "million man march" to protest against economic hardships, struck a chord with enough people to mobilise more than 400,000 people. This, in itself, was a record number of demonstrators that have ever attended a protest in the history of the State of Israel. The equivalent in the USA would see 22 million people coming out to protest, and the equivalent in the UK would be more than 4 million. I doubt very much that these numbers could be seen in demonstrations.

The social protests have the sympathy of most Israelis, including those who are not living below the breadline in the way that so many people are. This was in evidence last Saturday evening, when many of those who took to the streets were not necessarily struggling to pay their monthly rental. The notion of social justice impacts all aspects of Israeli society, and does not only affect those who are coping with financial difficulties. Services such as health and education are provided by the government for all sectors of society, and have been used even by those who could afford to pay separately for private services. Until now, the government-funded services have been of sufficiently high quality to satisfy all sectors of our society. For me, this has been one of the most pleasant aspects of Israeli as a country, and one which contributes to one of the flattest societies in the western world. There is nothing more pleasing than to see the rich and poor of the country receiving the same level of medical treatment and education, all provided by the government out of tax contributions. Although this has been the case in Israel to now, the quality of services provided by the government have deteriorated in recent times. This has contributed to all Israelis feeling the need to come out in protest to demonstrate their dissatisfaction at this situation.

It is true that many of those in the upper income brackets are able to buy these services privately. Private schools and health centres have begun to appear in recent years to satisfy this demand. I feel that a great deal is lost in the process. It is not only the fact that a two-tier system arises where the wealthy can buy what they need, and those who are in tougher financial circumstances are forced to take what they are offered. For me, it is also the connection that one sees at schools and medical health centres between different sectors of our society that will be lost. This will serve to enlarge the wealth gap that is already making itself evident in Israel. I feel that this lost connection will be harmful to Israeli society. In this respect, I was heartened to see the number of people who took to the streets, and to note that they were not only restricted to one sector of society or another. It is a credit to the event organisers that they succeeded in appealing to so many different Israelis, and managed to entice them out of their homes to demonstrate their displeasure to the government. All ages of the Israeli people could be seen together, including men, women and children of all ages including those in pushchairs and on the shoulders of their parents.

One of the most surprising aspects of the demonstrations, was the good atmosphere in which the gatherings were held. At the main event in Tel Aviv's Kikar Hamedina which attracted almost 300,000 people, a stage was constructed on which some of Israel's biggest names in music and entertainment appeared during the course of the evening of protest. Not only did this demonstrate their identification with the important cause, it also lent something of a party spirit to the event. So, while anger was in evidence against the government's seeming lack of willingness to engage with the protestors and their cause, there was also a great spirit in evidence when the entertainers took to the stage. Once the show was over, everybody returned quietly to their homes without any major incident or violence. The traffic may have been heavy, but crowd never got out of control, and always remembered the reason that they had come out on that evening.

I could not help comparing this event to some other protest events that have taken place around the world in recent months. The protest events in countries around the Arab world comprising the Arab Spring all resulted in violence and deaths or injuries initiated either by the protestors, or the authorities against which they were protesting. The recent riots which took place in London got completely out of control, and resulted in extensive damage to personal property affecting many hundreds of people. In contrast to these events, we saw real democracy at work. The rule of law was exercised by both the protestors as well as by the authorities, while people were afforded their democratic right to have their say. There could be no greater display of mutual respect of personal and social rights, than was seen during the course of this protest. Israel is a stronger country for having experienced these demonstrations.

The protest movement has decided to take down their tents, and move to a different phase of negotiation and lobbying to bring their demands to fruition. The fact that the tents will not be visible on the streets any longer does not mean that the protest is not continuing. Whether or not their aims are ultimately achieved, it would be safe to say that Israel will not be the same country after the protests of the summer of 2011. These protestors have forever changed the face of Israeli politics, protest and demonstration. They have also unwittingly chosen an excellent time to demonstrate this. It could not be more stark how the Arab spring and the Israeli summer have contrasted each other.

What Are Turkey's Real Intentions?

2011-09-04T05:00:00.000+03:00

Events in the relationship between Israel and Turkey moved very quickly on Friday after the publication of the Palmer Report which is the UN sponsored investigation into the Gaza Flotilla incident. The Palmer Report had been scheduled for release a number of weeks ago. Its release was delayed in order to facilitate efforts to try to reconcile the opposing positions that have been adopted by Israel and Turkey on the issue of the Gaza Flotilla incident. Ultimately, no real progress was evident in reconciling the opposing camps, and the report was formally released.

The release of the report did not reveal anything new due to the fact that most of the report's contents had been leaked to the press in the weeks leading up to its formal release. So, it would have been known that the report supports Israel's right to impose the Gaza blockade in order to counter the threat posed by terror groups in the strip. Palmer recognises both the extent of the threat that these groups represent to the safety of the State of Israel, and also the fact that the Gaza blockade is a legitimate and legal way of preventing the flow of arms that feed these terror activities. More than this, the Palmer report also recognises Israel's legal right to defend her territorial waters from those who seek to compromise her security in any way.

The report did reserve some criticism for Israel, for the way in which her security forces dealt with the protestors who mobbed them after they boarded the Marvi Marmara. Palmer decided that the response of the Israeli soldiers was "excessive" and "unreasonable". Although I don't agree with Palmer's conclusion when considering the type of attack that these soldiers came under when they boarded the ship, I do agree that the soldiers should have considered the tactics used to board the ship more carefully, given the level of threat that was already evident from the protestors on the ship.

In view of the conclusions reached by the Palmer report, the response by the Turkish government on Friday took many people by surprise. No longer had the report officially been released, and the announcement came from Ankara that the Israeli ambassador was to be expelled from Turkey. This was accompanied by a downgrade of diplomatic relations to the lowest possible level, and the cancellation of all military agreements in place between the two countries. Many have asked what justification Turkey has for this extreme response to the Palmer report, when the bulk of the report actually supports Israel's position.

Ever since the events of the Marvi Marmara which resulted in the death of 9 Turkish activists after they attacked the Israeli boarding party, Turkey has insisted that Israel issues a formal apology to Turkey for the deaths. Turkey has also insisted that Israel pays compensation to the families of the 9 victims. Israel has refused to issue a formal apology, even though the Israeli government did express regret for their deaths. There are those, even senior Israeli government officials, who hold the view that it would be best for Israel to issue an apology in the interests of preserving the relationship between Israel and Turkey. I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu has made the correct choice not to issue a formal apology, even if this means the deterioration of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The main reason that I support Netanyahu's position not to issue a formal apology, is because I feel that this would admit guilt on Israel's part. The only thing that Israel was guilty of, was protecting its territorial waters and enforcing the Gaza blockade. The Palmer report has already confirmed Israel's rights to these two activities. Additionally, issuing an apology would conceal the role of the Turkish government in the Marvi Marmara incident. The Gaza Flotilla was largely facilitated by a Turkish NGO known by the acronym IHH. This was the organisation that purchased the Marvi Marmara with the intention of sailing to Gaza to break the Israeli blockade. There are those who have accused the Turkish government of providing at least some of the financing to the IHH for the purchase of the Marvi Marmara. Even if this was not the case, there can be no doubt that the IHH had the support of the Turkish government in its quest to confront the Israeli government over the Gaza blockade. A year later, the efforts that the Greek government made to prevent the flotilla from departing Piraeus were in stark contrast to the tacit (or even active) support given by the Turkish government to the first flotilla. It seems only logical that the Turkish government be held responsible for its role in facilitating the fiasco. The truth remains that the Turkish government should have prevented the confrontation from taking place in the first place by preventing the flotilla from departing its shores. Placing the entire blame of the confrontation on Israel is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

The speed with which the Turkish government moved to expel the Israeli the envoy, and the manner in which the demand was made for a formal apology without any option of a compromise, has made me wonder whether the Turks were not simply looking for an excuse to downgrade their relations with Israel. The Marvi Marmara incident may have given them the perfect pretext to do so. One could possibly even trace the start of the downward trend in relations between the two countries to the re-election of Prime Minister Erdogan and his (Islamic) Justice and Development Party in 2007. Turkey has come under greater influence of the Islamists, and this is clearly not compatible with close relations with Israel. The Gaza flotilla incident is simply one significant point along a line that has been sloping downward for some time. Could it be that Turkey's newest ally, Iran, has demanded that it break ties with Israel because Iran is unable to contemplate close relations with a country that counts Israel as one of its strategic friends? This is certainly not inconceivable.

Turkey's behaviour in the Gaza flotilla affair, starting with its support for the flotilla through its demands of Israel for a formal apology, and now ending with its rejection of many of the conclusions of the Palmer Report risks alienating Turkey. Whereas it had the chance to try to seek a compromise solution, there now seems to be no way down from its current position. In downgrading its diplomatic relations with Israel, Turkey also risks damaging any relationship that it has with the USA and other European countries. This is not because these countries are so concerned about Turkey's relations with Israel, but because it seems as though this decision pushes Turkey into the firm clutches of Iran.

Having recovered from being the "sick man of Europe", a term attributed to the Ottoman Empire around the time of the First World War, Turkey has succeeded in achieving unparalleled economic and cultural development over the past twenty years. It has also suffered disappointment, particularly in connection with its efforts to be accepted for membership to the European Union. Any step, however, that takes it nearer to Iran and alienates it from the west will, in my estimation, be extremely damaging for Turkey in the longer term. It also makes Turkey a much less attractive friend for Israel. If Turkey continues to court Iran as a friend, Turkey is not an ally that Israel would wish to keep.

Learning Lessons From the Doctors' Strike

2011-08-30T22:00:00.002+03:00

After 158 long days of strikes by Israel's doctors, a deal has finally been reached with the treasury over their pay and working conditions. An agreement was signed between representatives of the doctors' labour union and government officials on Thursday which changes dramatically the humiliation that doctors in the public sector have been subject to in the past. The agreement is retroactive to 2010 when the last agreement ran out, and will govern pay scales for a nine-year period.

It is shameful that it took five months of strikes by the doctors to finally convince the treasury to agree to the new deal. Under its terms, hospital doctors will receive an average pay increase of 49%. Doctors working in the periphery of the country, and doctors working in specialities which suffer an acute shortage of personnel, will receive a substantially higher increase. These increases give an indication of how far behind market rates, doctors pay scales have fallen over the past few years. In return for the better salary levels, doctors have agreed to clock in and out of their shifts. A further 1,000 positions have also been added by the government to reduce the shortage of manpower that has been plaguing Israeli hospitals. Overall, this agreement is set to change the face of Israeli medicine and medical treatment in the country over the next few years.

The Israeli medical health system is one of the best that I have come across. One does not find the phenomenon here like in the USA and other countries around the world, that people who are at an economic disadvantage are unable to receive medical treatment. In Israel, all citizens have the right to have access to basic medical treatment which is of a high standard. One does also not experience the issue which the UK's National Health System suffers from of lengthy waiting lists for treatments to be carried out. In Israel, even though it may require some patience, treatments are usually available within a reasonable period of time. Now that pay scales have been rectified, it will ensure that those delivering this service will be remunerated accordingly. It will also mean that high quality individuals will be attracted to the medical field, and will be incentivised to practice their art in Israel as opposed to seeking more lucrative opportunities abroad.

For me, the main lessons to be learned from the new deal are the ones arising from the process that it took until the time that it was agreed. One can learn many things from the behaviour of the doctors in this process, as well as the way in which government officials acted. One of the toughest lessons that new immigrants to Israel are forced to learn, frequently via the most difficult route, is that there is no such thing as automatic entitlement in this country. Even if you have a caste-iron agreement in place which says that you are entitled to a certain increase in salary or other entitlement, you will not receive this unless you are prepared to go in and demand what you are entitled to. Whereas in other countries, companies usually have a date upon which salaries are reviewed and pay increases are awarded (or not as the case may be), this type of behaviour is not typical for Israel. Companies will award pay increases to those who shout the loudest, and may completely overlook those who are not willing to make a big noise. The doctors' strike was one of necessity. It should be clear that, without the industrial action and public relations exercise that went with it, the doctors would not have achieved a small fraction of what they deservedly achieved.

The way that the action was taken, is of equal importance. Emergency services were never interrupted. Instead, the doctors professionally separated the cases into those whose treatment was essential, and those whose treatment could be delayed. Any treatment that was essential went forward without consideration of the industrial action. Doctors administering chemotherapy and psychiatric treatment did not interrupt their regular work day in the interests of taking best care of their patients. The strike was immediately lifted ten days ago in the area of the terror attacks in the south until such time as all casualties from these attacks had been taken proper care of. Although there is now a substantial backlog of non-emergency treatments that have been delayed, the doctors have somehow managed their medical responsibilities under their Hippocratic Oath, while also succeeding in placing the required pressure on those who only understand the language of industrial action.

The behaviour of the government officials in this sorry story have less sympathy and respect from me. To begin with, the demands of the doctors were completely ignored. Even when the industrial action was initiated, the treasury refused to give sufficient consideration to the effects of below-market pay rates to the country's medical professionals. It eventually took a hunger strike on the part of the chairman of the Israel Medical Association, and a complete walkout of all medical residents from their hospitals until the proper attention was given to this important issue. When the agreement was finally signed last week, the treasury officials did their best to keep the signing low-key and behind doors.

It is true that the government has an obligation to keep its spending under control, especially at the current time when inflation threatens to increase. With huge security obligations, Israel's government spending is always tough to keep under control. This should not, and cannot serve as an excuse for not allocating the correct public money to build the future of this young country. Education, medical services, infrastructure and many other services cannot be ignored due to the military and security requirements. It does mean, however, that public officials have extra responsibility to ensure that each Shekel of tax money goes as far as it possibly can. In this, unfortunately, our country fails miserably. The amount of waste, corruption and unnecessary spending of money that is evident is a huge disappointment to the citizens of Israel. Why should the defense minister feel justified to request a new Audi A8 at a cost to the taxpayer of 2 million Shekels, when his current A6 is more than adequate. The state comptroller's reports are regularly critical of unnecessary wastage of tax money. Such lack of consideration to where the money really needs to go, should not be tolerated.

I feel that citizens of the State of Israel owe a deep debt of gratitude to our medical professionals. For many years, they have provided a high quality service in line with the most recent developments in technology and treatment, while being paid far less than their real value. When the moment came to bring this situation to a head, they did so in the most respectful way possible, while still insisting upon the maintenance of their own rights and dignity. If some of our government officials and elected politicians behaved in this way, Israel would be in a much better overall state.

The Scourge of Terrorism in Southern Israel

2011-08-21T23:00:00.003+03:00

During the course of last Thursday when a series of terror attacks were taking place in the south of Israel, the country was following the news on a minute-by-minute basis hungry for updates of the latest situation. This brought back reminders of a few years ago when buses, restaurants and coffee shops were being targeted by terrorists intent on killing innocent Israelis. Thursday's events served as a reminder that, despite a number of years having passed since the last Intifada, those intent on destroying Israel and her people will never rest.

Now that Thursday's sequence of events are better known, it is clear that this was a well coordinated onslaught on the State of Israel and her citizens. According to the press reports, a cell of about 20 operatives from the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) tunnelled their way from Gaza into the Sinai Peninsula. From there, they crossed the border fence from Egypt into Israel and set up a series of ambushes near to the border fence. In the first attack, light arms were used to fire on a bus travelling towards Eilat from Beer Sheva. A number of soldiers travelling on the bus were injured in this attack, and only the presence of mind of the bus driver saved further loss of life. Despite his bus coming under sustained fire, and bullets passing narrowly over his own head during the attack, he did not stop until he saw Israeli security vehicles that had been dispatched in response to the attack. A short time after this, another bus was fired upon. Although this bus was empty, the bus driver was shot and killed in the attack. When the security services gathered at the sites of the attacks, an ambush was launched on the soldiers and police who were gathered there. The skirmish that followed resulted in the death of an Israeli soldier.

The attack that resulted in the greatest loss of life on Thursday, was made on a civilian vehicle that was travelling towards Eilat. An anti-tank missile was fired at this car, and instantly killed the four middle-aged occupants who were innocently travelling from central Israel for a holiday in Eilat. Another car was also hit by a rocket-propelled grenade as part of the series of attacks, resulting in a further death. An attack on an Israeli security patrol along the Egyptian border later in the day saw a further security officer killed in the crossfire. In all during the course of Thursday, 8 Israelis were killed and many more injured. Some of the terrorists were also killed in the response to these incidents, but most of the cell escaped back towards Sinai. Egyptian soldiers found themselves in the middle of the crossfire between IDF soldiers and the terrorists. It is reported that 3 Egyptian soldiers were killed, seemingly by IDF fire.

Israel had received intelligence of an imminent attack in the area where the attacks took place. The nature of the attack was not clear, but the warnings were sufficiently serious for the Israeli military to decide to deploy a unit of crack Golani soldiers in the area. In addition to the Golani soldiers, the security services had also deployed a unit of Israel's highly specialised anti-terrorism police (known by its Hebrew acronym Yamam) in the area of the attacks. The special units were expecting an infiltration from across the border in order to try to kidnap another IDF soldier. They were not expecting the chain of attacks that actually took place. Their presence in the area and their quick responses to the locations of the attacks, however, almost certainly prevented greater casualties.

Responsibility for this series of attacks falls to Islamic Jihad and the PRC based in Gaza. While Hamas has been cautious not to get directly involved, the fact that these attacks come from Gaza while Hamas is ruling the strip means that Hamas has at least some indirect responsibility. There are those who claim that Hamas had the power to stop these events from taking place. So, although the attacks were not from Hamas, the rulers in Gaza are responsible for not stopping them. Israel's response to the attacks was swift and pin-pointed. The first strike eliminated the PRC operatives who were responsible for planning the attacks and giving the authorisation to proceed. Further Israeli air force strikes hit smuggling tunnels in Gaza as well as other terror locations.

The IDF strikes, in turn, precipitated further rocket attacks from Gaza. Up to the time of posting this blog on Sunday evening, more than 100 missiles have rained down on Southern Israel from Gaza since Thursday. The two"Iron Dome" batteries that have been deployed around major cities in the south have successfully shot down a number of missiles. Despite this fact, 1 person has been killed and many others injured in the barrage that has fallen in the south. Schools, homes and other buildings have been destroyed and damaged. The IDF has intensified its reaction to the bombing, which simply continues the tit-for-tat exchanges which endanger human lives every day. This could also result in an all-out war, something which has happened in the past. At the time of writing this, the Egyptians have offered to mediate a truce between Israel and all Palestinian factions involved. Although a ceasefire was understood to have come into force at 9pm Israeli time this evening, two missiles were fired after this time. One was intercepted by an Iron Dome missile, and another fell in open area. It seems as though no ceasefire is being adhered to.

The irony about these terror attacks is that, only hours earlier on Thursday morning, Israel was negotiating with Hamas for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. These negotiations, also brokered by the Egyptians, ended without result. It is hardly surprising that this was the result, when Hamas is allowing terror attacks to be launched from within its territory against Israel. Hamas seems to have no intention of coming to any agreement with Israel. Continuing to negotiate over the release of Gilad Shalit is simply speaking with "forked tongue" in its truest sense. Having evacuated Gaza and turned it over entirely to the rule of the Palestinians, what is it that Hamas really wants of Israel? Perhaps these actions represent Hamas acting true to its genuine beliefs that it will not rest until the Jews have no homeland in the world.

What is more frightening is that the world is looking towards Israel ahead of a possible UN vote on Palestinian statehood less than a month from now. Surely, the world can never expect Israel to co-exist alongside those who behave in this way. To make it quite clear, the excuses that Hamas and other Palestinian factions give for this behaviour are simply excuses. The violence will not miraculously stop if and when the blockage on Gaza is lifted, or when a Palestinian state is created. Rather than stop the violence, these events are more likely to escalate the violence, with the Palestinians having greater forces and weapons at their disposal.

At this critical juncture when Israel has shown willingness to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one capture IDF hero, or when debates are taking place regarding Palestinian statehood, the Palestinians have unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for Israel) shown their true colours once again. I was one of the people who wanted to give them a chance to allow them to prove that they are prepared to live in peace alongside a Jewish country. I have, however, given up all hope of this. It will not happen in my lifetime, despite the best efforts by many in the Israeli peace camp. Once, about 15 years ago, the majority of Israelis would have voted in favour of a peace treaty. Now, it seems to me that a small number would give peace a chance under the current circumstances.

Even as the Palestinian leadership tries to convince the world that its intentions of having a Palestinian state are honourable and trustworthy, the Palestinian street has shown the true intentions of these efforts. They cannot, and should not be trusted. There can be no Palestinian state and there can be no peace treaty unless something fundamental changes in the Palestinian camp. In the meantime, Israel has no choice but to fight fire with fire.

Is This The Israeli Spring?

2011-08-14T13:00:00.001+03:00

Some newspapers, particularly those in the Arab world, have started to write about the current social protests in Israel as the "Israeli Spring". This brings the Israeli demonstrations into a direct comparison with the "Arab Spring", the series of uprisings that have been sweeping the Arab world. But how relevant is this comparison? Is it accurate to depict the Israeli protests as part of a "Middle Eastern Spring"?

For me, the Arab Spring and the Israeli protests are two separate and unrelated issues that happen to have occurred at the same time. The Arab uprisings have come in the place of a due democratic process for replacing rulers and governments in these countries. The Arab Spring has been all about regime change, and protestors have not been prepared to rest until the government has fallen and the leadership replaced. This is what we have seen in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen so far. The situations in Libya and Syria also reflect this objective, and the protestors have been prepared to continue their protests for months on end until they see Ghadafi and Assad relinquish power. The Arab Spring uprisings have also been met with a firm hand of authority by the relevant ruling powers. Thousands have been killed in the course of governments trying to quell popular uprisings against autocratic leaders.

Although the protests in Israel also reflect dissatisfaction on the part of everyday citizens, the situation could not be more different. Perhaps the most important fact concerning the Israeli protests is that they have not called for regime change. Many protestors have expressed great disappointment and dissatisfaction with the performance of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government. None of them have, however, sought his replacement. For that, we have another mechanism - a general election. The next general election will need to take place by February 2013 at the latest, and provides the opportunity for Israelis to replace Netanyahu if they are sufficiently dissatisfied with him. This means that the current protests have no need or desire to call for the government to be replaced.

The protests in Israel have been heartfelt and have attracted the support and participation of large numbers of Israelis. All of these people have the same objective, which is to bring to the government's attention the economic hardships that they are all suffering. These are mostly people with homes and with jobs, and who are just not managing to make their income stretch far enough to cover all their expenses in order to survive in a modest manner. They are calling for tax breaks and cheaper housing options to make their money go further to allow them to feed, clothe and educate their children without being forced into overdraft every month. The way that they are making their frustrations felt is by setting up tent cities in public areas in Israel's major cities.

Instead of clamping down on these protestors, the municipalities have cooperated to allow them to exercise their democratic right to protest. Municipalities have put up netting above the tents to provide shade from the summer heat. They have provided water tanks at the tent cities to ensure that protestors can maintain basic hygiene. Signs have been erected alongside the tent cities proclaiming that municipal workers support their cause and the protestors' efforts. Shopkeepers in the area have befriended the protestors and provided them with basic foodstuffs that they may require, often without charge. Lounge furniture has been delivered and set up next to the areas of the tent cities where protestors and their supporters can gather for social meetings and heated debates. Guitar music and singing can be heard in the vicinity of the protest tents, where people have come together to support each other and enjoy a little light entertainment. Police have been deployed around these areas only to protect the belongings of the protestors, and to ensure that social order is maintained in the tent cities. Many policemen and women have befriended the protestors, and have got to know them on a first name basis. The local newspapers are full of stories about romances that have blossomed in the protest tents on the streets of Israeli towns and cities. At the large demonstrations, some of which have attracted up to 250,000, some of Israel's biggest singers have been on hand to keep the crowds entertained, many offering their services without cost. When considering all of the above, how can one honestly link this to the protests and the government reactions that have been seen in Arab countries in recent months?

I have been horrified to see the violence which has taken hold of the streets of England over the past week or two. The sights of businesses and residences of innocent people being torched by gangs of thugs, while police watch helplessly, has been a tragic and terrifying image. I feel sure that many youths and young people in Israel have the same feeling of disenfranchisement as their British counterparts. I am convinced that there are many Israelis who would also welcome the opportunity to lay their hands on a new pair of trainers or new plasma TV set. These are the people who are voicing their frustrations in the tent cities across Israel. In Tel Aviv, it is not coincidental that the tent city has sprung up on Rothschild Boulevard. Besides the fact that the street carries the name of one the wealthiest families and also has a wide middle island which has been adapted to accommodate thousands of tents, it is also the address for the headquarters of many of Israel's largest banks. The protest alongside the wealthy bankers of Israel has been located deliberately for the upper echelons of society to see from their office windows. And despite feelings running high that many of these people are downtrodden and have been poorly treated by Israeli society, there is no sign of looting or any social unrest at all. Their point, however, has been clearly made and noted.

In the Arab countries, the rulers have abused their authority by denying citizens any rights to freedom of expression and due democratic process. They have clamped down on their citizens in the most horrific way by setting the army on innocent civilians, and killing people in their thousands. In England, youths on the streets have abused their democratic rights by looting shops, setting fire to properties and even killing innocent people. I can't help feeling that Israelis, who also have the same strong feelings, have managed to get things just right. People are protesting about the issues which are most hurtful to them, but doing it in a way in which each side respects the other's rights. It is not for nothing that we have been called the only democratic country in the Middle East. This is clearly visible on the streets of Israel at this time.

Long live democracy in the Holy Land !

Being Uplifted From a Most Unlikely Place

2011-08-07T21:00:00.002+03:00

I am sure you all know the feeling when a seemingly insignificant event or comment has a marked impact on your spirits. This is exactly what happened to me last week. I had a particularly exhausting week through a combination of increased pressure at work and the effects of the summer heat. I went along to the supermarket late one evening with my wife and son to pick up a few items of groceries. Once my wife had found all that she needed (and more), we headed to the checkout counter.

In Israeli supermarkets, the checkout counter is usually a place to increase your tension levels. Queues are long, other shoppers are rude and inconsiderate and the checkout clerks usually slow and uncaring. On this occasion, our checkout clerk was an Ethiopian lady with a big welcoming smile. We recognised her from a few weeks ago when she also checked us out, and we immediately got chatting. She remarked on how tired I looked (I guess that she figured this out from the fact that I sat down on the chair of the next checkout counter that was not in operation, and let my wife and son get on with bagging our goods). She was interested in the fact that we spoke English amongst ourselves, and asked where we came from. I told her that we originate from South Africa, and she remarked that we are cousins by virtue of our common African heritage. I asked how long she has been in Israel, and she told me that she came on aliyah from Ethiopia 27 years ago in 1984. This means that she has lived in Israel for most of her life, and probably came as part of Operation Moses that airlifted some 8,000 Jews from the Gondar region of Ethiopia.

I asked about life in Ethiopia. She said that now, life in Ethiopia is not too bad. This is in contrast to the starvation that was being experienced at the time of her immigration in the mid 80's. Despite the improvements in the situation in Ethiopia, she said that life there is not good for the Jews. Tongue in cheek, I responded by saying that life in Israel is also not good for the Jews. My comment was a throw-away line which referred mainly to the massive demonstrations against economic hardships. I knew that she would almost certainly not have things easy. The immigrants from Ethiopia have been forced to endure a great deal of hardship during their time in Israel. Many of them were not recognised as Jews and were not extended the rights available to Jews under Israel's Law of Return when they arrived. A great number have been forced to convert to Judaism to be recognised as Jews by Israel's Ministry of the Interior. Their gentle character and system of respect has been taken advantage of in the aggressive rough-and-tumble that is prevalent in Israel. The fact that so many of the Ethiopian immigrants have been through the Israeli education system, completed their army service and integrated themselves fully into Israeli society is a huge achievement. I was also aware that this lady, as a checkout clerk, is probably earning the minimum wage of approximately 24 Shekels an hour. If people earning twice this amount are camped out in tent cities across Israel protesting economic hardships, how much more somebody like her. My expectation was that she would simply agree with my comment that things are not easy.

Instead, she looked at me, smiled and said, "but this is our country". She told me how good she feels that she can identify freely as a Jew in Israel, and eat kosher food without worrying about who may be watching her. Despite having lived in Israel for so many years, she clearly still values and appreciates the freedom that she has a Jew in the Jewish homeland. I left the supermarket still feeling tired, but really uplifted from my short conversation. In the space of a few sentences, the Ethiopian lady had really made me appreciate again what it is to be a Jew in Israel despite all the hardships. The truth is that I am usually aware of this fact, and how privileged I am to be able to live as a Jew in a Jewish country. One only has to go back one generation, to the time of my parents, to know how Jews were forced to live "under the radar" in order to survive. With anti-Semitism rife in many countries, this is still the case today in some parts of the world. The checkout clerk helped to remind me of this at a time that I was thinking more about how tired I felt, and about the economic hardships that people are feeling in Israel at the current time. She somehow managed to focus on the half full part of the glass, rather than the half empty.

Life is certainly not easy these days for many of Israel's citizens. Many people are working hard simply to stay on the bread line. Thousands of people are camped in tent cities across Israel protesting against economic hardships. The fact that fully 5% of the population were involved last nght in demonstrations against the economic situation in Israel, is evidence of the hardships being experienced by so many. Despite all of this, our Ethiopian checkout lady was able to keep smiling, and radiate her positive energy in a way that really lifted my spirits. On my next visit to the supermarket, I will definitely lookiout for my Ethiopian friend.

What is the Answer to the Tent City Protests?

2011-07-31T23:00:00.003+03:00

It is somewhat ironic that Israel's housing crisis has run in a completely opposite direction to the crises that have taken place elsewhere around the world. House prices have dropped dramatically in the USA and Europe over the past few years. With this decrease in prices has come a wholesale collapse in the entire housing sector, as mortgage banks have found themselves unable to cope with clients not making their repayments, and the value of their collateral suddenly much lower than that of the loans. Governments have been forced to step in to save these institutions in order to prevent some of the biggest financial names going into liquidation. As opposed to this, house prices in Israel have continued to rise beyond the pockets of many ordinary citizens.

The phenomenon of oversupply and lack of demand seen in the rest of the world has not taken place in Israel, with prices somehow remaining fairly constant over the time that the bottom has dropped out of the market elsewhere. This means that Israelis, who have also suffered significant financial hardships over the period of the economic downturn, are not enjoying any relief from lower house prices. This fact extends itself into the rental market where rentals for ordinary apartments cost a great deal, and add to the financial woes of the average Israeli citizen. After experiencing price rises on a range of goods and services without commensurate increases in earnings, the Israeli consumer has eventually decided that he cannot tolerate the situation any further, and has spilled out onto the street in protest. The main target of the protest has been the inflated prices that citizens are required to pay for housing. Tent cities have sprung up in the central areas of many Israeli towns and cities, and protestors are sleeping on the street to demonstrate against the government for not paying sufficient attention to providing cheaper housing options.

In the 13 years since I moved to Israel, house prices have increased dramatically. Somehow the Israeli housing market has not seen the same ups and downs that have been evident in other markets. An apartment that cost approximately 800,000 Shekels back in 1998 will cost around 1.2 million Shekels today, an increase of 50%. Admittedly, there were years in which house prices did drop. Overall, however, the increase in the price of housing and of rentals has outstripped inflation by some distance. The reason for this comes from a number of different sources.

The most obvious issue driving house prices, is the fact that land in Israel is scarce. The entire area of the State of Israel is approximately 20,000 square kilometres, a similar size to the US state of New Jersey. Even the land that we have is not secure, with continuing demands by the Palestinians for Israel to relinquish further land claimed by them for a Palestinian state. With so little land available, it is inevitable that this will contribute to higher land prices. Attempts to build higher to use land more intensively have also not helped much to reduce the land cost element of the cost of property.

Along with the lack of supply, demand for property in Israel seems to be ever-increasing. Some of it is being fuelled by the upper classes who are not sensitive to the economic downturn, and who are constantly searching for bigger, better and more ostentatious properties. This is particularly true of the Israeli nouveau riche, some of them hi-tech and Internet millionaires. Demand is also being driven by Jews from outside of Israel who are looking for a piece of the Holy Land to use as a holiday pad. This demand has increased in recent years, and has contributed to parts of Jerusalem turning into ghost neighbourhoods with holiday apartments remaining empty between holiday visits. In addition, with approximately 20 years having passed since the gates of the former Soviet Union opened to allow Jews to leave for a new life in Israel, we are now seeing the effects of the children of these immigrants leaving the nest. A surprisingly high number of these new immigrants have succeeded in buying their own homes over the years, and now their children wish to emulate this example as they set out on their own paths. I recently attended an interesting seminar which showed that this generation will be driving demand for property and other major expense items for some time in the future.

All of this does not look optimistic for the man in the street. Israeli unemployment is currently at an all-time low of approximately 5.7%. For the economists amongst us, this means that Israel is nearing full employment, a situation where all those who wish to work are working. The problem is that this is not helping to reduce poverty. Salaries have remained so low despite increasing inflation, that Israel is increasingly becoming a nation of working poor (see my blog A Country of Working Poor). Most of those who are inhabiting the tent cities across Israel are not unemployed and homeless. The vast majority have jobs and homes, but are finding it impossible to keep making the rent or mortgage payments despite long working hours. For many people, the cost of keeping a roof over their heads is costing 50% and more from the money they bring home each month. Surely, this is an intolerable situation.

More than a hundred thousand people took to the streets last night in towns and cities from Rosh Pina to Eilat to protest the lack of action on the part of the government. The slogan being shouted at these protests is "an entire generation demands social justice". The feeling is that the government is pandering to the Israeli tycoons at the expense of the man in the street. This has enabled the tycoons to build and live in luxury developments which are under construction across Tel Aviv. Some of these sites have become targets for the protest0rs. The government has been unable to express what they have done so far to provide more affordable housing for young couples and lower income earners. The prime minister has been unwilling to come out to meet the protestors on the streets. This is contributing, not only to the feeling that the prime minister has done nothing, but also to the feeling that the government is unwilling to do anything to fix this situation.

Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to this serious and far-reaching problem. Many respected market watchers are predicting a significant drop in Israeli home prices in the near future. The problem is that it would take some time for rental prices to follow any correction, and I have my doubts that rental prices would fall in any significant way. I remain highly doubtful that a drop in house prices is on the horizon at all. Any action that the government may take now to provide lower cost housing is likely to take years until it comes to market. So what can the government do in response to this protest?

While the protest is focused on rising house prices, it is really about the general increases in the cost of living, while incomes remain static. The first step to fix this has already been taken by the government when they decided to freeze the fuel price increase that was set for tonight. The decision to hold fuel prices steady is likely to have a significant knock-on effect by holding the prices of many other items steady. The next step is to increase earnings to level the playing field. Starting with the doctors who are fully justified in their strikes for better pay over the past three months, public sector and private sector workers need a bigger pay cheque to allow them to balance the budget at the end of each month. In tandem with this, longer-term measures should be put in place to provide sufficient lower-cost housing for those who simply cannot afford to pay the prices in the current market. Failure to act quickly and decisively risks financial ruin for many families. The future of the government could easily rest upon its ability to react to this problem.

Diaspora Jewish Leaders Have a Responsibility Towards Israel

2011-07-25T23:00:00.008+03:00

I have been following with interest, the comments that have been made about Israel by UK Jewish leader Mick Davis. Davis is chairman of the United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) in the UK, and one of the UK's pre-eminent Jewish leaders and businessmen. He has been an outspoken critic of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, particularly with regard to the lack of progress in peace talks with the Palestinians. His latest barb, however, went further than simply criticising the prime minister. When addressing a group of people at the London Jewish Cultural Centre, Davis warned that Israel could become an apartheid state if a two-state solution with the Palestinians is not implemented.

Davis' language was clearly designed to be provocative and emotional when using the "a" word, something that we have seen Israel's enemies do a great deal of in recent times. By invoking the comparison with the South African apartheid regime, there is an attempt to relegate Israel to the gutters of politics and throw it into the category of the worst and most oppressive political regimes. Even Davis' attempt to clarify his point by saying that this apartheid state arises by virtue of the fact that the minority is being governed by the majority, does not serve to rescue him from his unforgiveable crime against the State of Israel and her citizens.

If anybody amongst the UK Jewish leadership should understand what apartheid really is, it should be Mick Davis. After all, he grew up in apartheid South Africa before moving onto the UK scene. I remember Mick Davis when he studied at Rhodes University in Grahamstown, where I grew up. He stood out then, not only because of his substantial physical frame, but also as a Jewish leader who identified closely with Judaism and Jewish causes. This was somewhat different from many of the Jewish students studying at the university at that time, who did not identify with their Jewish roots. It is interesting that Davis has chosen to invoke the apartheid theme to criticise the Israeli government's current direction, even though there is really no link at all between the Israeli situation and apartheid. The truth is that this comparison is highly inappropriate and does not fit Israel in any way, even if it was true that the majority was governing the minority (it is not true). I have not seen the Jordanian government accused of apartheid because the minority Hashemites rule over the majority. I have not seen the Syrian government accused of apartheid because the minority Hashemites are in power. The administration of George W. Bush was not accused of apartheid because it took power despite the fact that Al Gore scored half a million more votes across America than he did. Even if the minority does rule over the majority, this fact does not automatically turn the government into an apartheid administration.

Israel finds itself in times which are substantially different from the early years of her existence. Israel was founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and has provided a refuge for many a Jew who has had nowhere else in the world to go. Despite this fact, Israel relied heavily on help and assistance from Jews in the Diaspora for her survival. These days, the equilibrium has shifted to the point that Israel is no longer as reliant on the Jews in the Diaspora as she was in the earlier days. In fact, in the current times, the Jews in the Diaspora rely more on Israel in order to fight the scourge of anti-Semitism that is being experienced in so many different countries. Davis' derogatory statements about Israel must surely place further pressure and risk on the Jews in his UK constituency, and provide ammunition for the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. This point was not lost on Mick Davis as he commented on the fact the British Jews feel that they cannot voice their criticisms of Israel for fear of their ideas being used by Israel's enemies. So why has he felt it appropriate to make these unwarranted and unjust accusations against Israel?

It is the right of every Jew, Israeli or not, to disagree with the policies and actions followed by the Israeli government. After all, this government is only a collection of imperfect human beings, who do get things wrong on a frequent basis. Criticisms voiced by Jews in the Diaspora do, however, need to be carefully considered. The way in which criticisms are expressed should equally be given thought. At risk here is not only the safety of the State of Israel, but also the safety and well-being of Jews around the world. Expressing justified criticism could do irreparable damage, so how much more criticism that has no basis or justification.

Mick Davis may feel that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state (even though there is no evidence at all to support this concern). Expressing this in a public forum, in his capacity as a senior Jewish leader in the UK, is regrettable and wrong. This serves to weaken Israel's international standing, and place unnecessary pressure on Jews around the world. The time has come for Jewish leaders in the Diaspora to accept that they have a responsibility towards the State of Israel as the real protector of Jews around the world. In spite of all the good and positive things that he has achieved for himself and the Jewish community, Mick Davis has not fulfilled his responsibility on this occasion.

Boycotts and Democracy

2011-07-17T20:00:00.000+03:00

Last week, the Knesset passed a controversial law which has reignited the ongoing debate about the nature of Israel's democracy. The new law, which enjoys the full support of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ruling Likud party, makes it illegal to call for boycotts on Israel. It also makes it illegal to call for boycotts on parts of Israel, such as the settlements or the West Bank.

Over the 63 years of its existence, Israel has suffered a great deal from the effects of boycotts, which have been directed against Israel by those opposed to her continued existence. The most notable and widely reported of these boycotts has been the Arab boycott. This has not only been directed against Israel herself, but also against companies that have had links with or representation in Israel. It has been interesting to note how this boycott has been applied in a highly selective manner. Companies like Coca Cola, McDonald's, Apple and Microsoft have continued to sell their products in the Arab world, while still being widely represented in Israel.

It is one thing for enemies to call for boycotts to try to damage a country's economy, in an attempt to change the politics within that country or a region. It becomes quite another thing when those who are considered closer to the country, for example citizens of the country, use these tactics. It seems as if this was the moment when the Israeli government stepped in and decided that action needed to be taken against those calling for boycotts. There are those who argue that calling for a boycott is tantamount to treason, particularly for a country like Israel which already finds itself in a precarious situation. This is what prompted the government to step in, and to pass a law that makes it illegal to call for boycotts. More than this, the government has enacted that companies or individuals making such calls will be excluded from bidding on government tenders.

The controversy during the passage of the bill resulted in the final version being somewhat diluted from the original draft of the bill. Originally, it was recommended that it be a criminal offense to call for boycotts against Israel. By the time the law passed its final hearing, it was enacted that calling for boycotts would not be a criminal offense, but would rather be a civil offense. Although one cannot be arrested and charged by the state when calling for boycotts, it does mean that anybody who is the target of such boycott can sue the accused in a court of law, while not having to prove that actual damage was caused. The fine on those found guilty of this offense has been left to the court in question to rule upon.

Any controversy that was evident in and around the corridors of the Knesset during the time that the bill was in its draft form, have erupted into much greater levels of opposition since the bill was passed. The debate and controversy has focused upon whether such a bill is undemocratic. Is it a limitation on the freedom of speech of the individual to prevent him from calling for a boycott on the country in which he lives? Some highly respected legal opinions think that this is the case. Although Israeli State Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein sees no conflict between the new law and freedom of speech, the legal adviser to the Knesset does not agree. Eyal Yanon issued an opinion which states that parts of the law "edge toward illegality and beyond". A group of 32 Israeli law professors and senior legal academics signed a petition to demonstrate their objection to the law on a legal basis. It is their view that it should be the right of all citizens to be able to say what they feel, and to take actions to support this including the call for boycotts on Israel. There is clearly more than simply a passing concern about the impact of the new law on Israeli democracy. This, in turn, causes much consternation as Israelis are extremely protective over the democratic nature of the state.

If we take this scenario into the world of business for a moment, the rules seem clearer cut. It is acceptable to cause economic damage to competitors, so long as the actions taken are legal and within the realms of fair competitive action. It is unacceptable, however, to make calls for actions against the company for which you work, which may have a significant detrimental impact on the company. This is likely to be a firing offense. The rule is, that if you cannot live with the policies followed by your employer, you need to find employment elsewhere rather than try to militate from within to cause your company damage. Do the same rules not apply to the country in which you live? Should the state not have the right to demand some level of loyalty to be shown by those who enjoy the benefits that the state offers to its citizens? Should it not be an offense to bite the hand that feeds you, and protects you from the enemies of the world?

The effectiveness of calls for boycotts over the years is unclear. There are those who claim that the massive international boycotts applied against the apartheid government in South Africa were ultimately the catalyst that gave rise to democracy in that country. Boycotts applied against other countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, North Korea and countless other countries over the years, seem not to have produced the desired results. Boycotts have surely caused damage to these countries, but not in sufficient amounts to bring about the changes that were desired by the boycotters. Boycotts have undoubtedly caused damage to the Israeli economy over the years. They have also served to prove correct the famous idiom based on a quotation from Plato, that "necessity is the mother of invention". As a result of boycotts applied against her, Israel has developed her own capabilities and independence in so many industries that would otherwise not have been the case. In a perverse sort of way, Israel has probably gained more from boycotts than she has lost.

I find it difficult to understand how the law passed by the Knesset impinges on the democratic rights and freedom of expression available to Israelis. This is especially true when considering the fact that there is no criminal offense committed by those who transgress the new law. For me, the true test of our democracy and rights to freedom of speech is whether we are able to hold an open debate about our democracy without fear of retribution. In that sense, the boycott law has served to strengthen my faith in our democracy rather than weaken it. The process has proved that Arab members of Knesset have the right to make their opposition clear (as long as this is done within the rules by which Knesset debates are run), and a legal adviser employed by the Knesset is also entitled to publicly voice his opposition to a law passed by the same Knesset that pays his salary and feeds his children. Most important to me is the fact that those who think that they can enjoy the benefits of citizenship of the State of Israel, and also make public calls which will damage her economic and political well-being, will be forced to take responsibility for their actions in a court of law. This is true democracy in action.

Why Turkey and Israel Still Wish to be Friends

2011-07-10T21:00:00.000+03:00

It is exactly a year ago that relations between Israel and Turkey hit one of their all-time lowest points. This was caused by the events of the first Gaza flotilla, which left 9 Turkish citizens dead aboard the Marvi Marmara protest ship. Turkey pointed a finger at Israel and the IDF accusing them of the death of its citizens, and demanded an apology. The apology was not forthcoming, and Turkey promptly withdrew its ambassador from Israel. Diplomatic relations between the two countries went into a serious decline impacting on military, economic and political cooperation.

In the space of one short year, the situation has changed quite dramatically. The demand for the apology over the deaths of its citizens has not been dropped by Turkey (yet). A dialogue has been taking place between the two countries over the past few weeks that indicates a serious intent to somehow find a way to get the diplomatic relations back on track. To some, it may seem strange that things can change so radically over the short space of 12 months. There are, however, a number of strong drivers behind each country's intention to repair the damaged relationship.

Turkey's relationship with Israel has been driven to a great extent by its relationships with other countries, particularly those in the west. Turkey has had a somewhat ambivalent relationship with the west. On the one hand, Turkey has been castigated by the west over its actions in northern Cyprus and has also been frustrated in its efforts to join the European Union over many years. On the other hand, Turkey has been an important ally for the USA and NATO in maintaining a military counter-balance to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact in former times. More recently, Turkey has provided the USA with assistance in countering the new threat from Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Like in days of old when the Ottomans were able to capitalise on the critical location of Constantinople as a bridge between east and west, so it is that the modern-day Turks are able to take advantage of their strategic location to good effect in order to create and maintain key relationships.

For Israel, relations with Turkey have an equal level of ambivalence. Turkey, with its population of over 70 million, is one of the largest countries in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although Turkey has no official state religion, over 97% of its citizens are Muslims. As a result, when it comes to matters relating to Israel in the international community, there is always a very good chance that Turkey will side with other Muslim countries in their opposition to Israel. It is notable that Turkey is not an Arab country. Despite their common religion, there are many cultural differences and clashes between Turkey and Middle Eastern Arab countries. It is these cracks which Israel has exploited to good effect in the past, to build economic, political and military relations with Turkey.

Following numerous unsuccessful attempts on Turkey's part to gain entry to the Europe Union, the country's government decided to seek friendships elsewhere. This happened at a time when there was a huge upsurge in Islamic religious fundamentalism in Turkey, along with similar trends elsewhere in the Islamic world. This pushed Turkey's attentions eastward and southward towards its Islamic friends and neighbours. It has spent much time over the past few years building stronger ties with Syria, and particularly with Iran. This all seemed like a solid strategic step to take until the "Arab Spring" swept through the Middle East. Turkey has been forced to all but abandon its ties with Syria and, with it, its friendly links with Iran. Once again, Turkey is looking for friends. Under this set of circumstances, repairing its damaged links with Israel appear an attractive option. Not only is there a solid economic and political advantage for Turkey in bilateral links with Israel, there is also the important link that Israel has to the USA. This could, in turn, help to build bridges to other western countries. Closer links with Turkey could equally be an advantage for Israel. Turkey presents Israeli goods and services with an economic opportunity. In addition, Turkey could act as a bridge between Israel and the Islamic world.

Events over the past few months have weakened Turkey's position, and possibly forced the Turks to be more flexible in backing down from established positions in order to repair its relationship with Israel. The commission appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to examine the events of the Gaza flotilla, is ready to report its findings. Former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and his colleagues on the commission have had access to a great deal of material, including video footage taken by both sides, which is connected to the events that took place on the Marvi Marmara. Palmer's report strongly supports Israel's rights under international law to defend her sea borders. Although criticising the IDF for excessive violence on the Marvi Marmara, Palmer does not support Turkey's demand for an apology from Israel. Palmer additionally praises Israel's internal investigation into the events as being independent and professional. On the contrary, Turkey's investigation is criticised for being politically motivated and unprofessional. The points in the report which do not support Turkey's claims and positions are effectively forcing Turkey to compromise to a greater degree than Israel in the negotiations to reach agreement.

It was hoped that the two sides would have reached agreement by the end of last week to allow Palmer to publish his report against the backdrop of two countries having reconciled. The agreement was not reached, and the publication of the report has been delayed in the hope that agreement can still be reached in the near future. The longer it takes to reach the agreement, the more likely it is that Turkey will be forced to compromise even further. For Turkey, not reaching agreement is probably less attractive than having to make the painful concessions necessary to reach the agreement.

Although I cannot envisage thousands of Israeli tourists filling Turkish holiday resorts in the near future as once was the case, this prospect does not seem very far away. Both countries have substantial interest to repair the damage done, and to renew their relationship to mutual advantage. I find it difficult to contemplate the possibility that either of the countries will not do almost all that is required to bring things back from the brink. Having said that, I believe that Turkey will be forced to back down from its demand for an apology. This will almost definitely not be delivered by Israel.

Gaza Flotilla is Running Out of Wind

2011-07-03T22:00:00.001+03:00

The events of last year's Gaza flotilla left Israel reeling in a public relations disaster. After the IDF intercepted the flotilla to prevent it from entering Gaza and boarded one of the vessels, 9 of the activists were dead and many others (including soldiers of the IDF) were injured. So it has been no surprise that activists have been desperately trying to gather together a follow-up flotilla in the hope that they can again depict Israel as some type of monster in the international press. Despite numerous failed attempts to put together a fleet of ships together over the past year, the activists finally seemed to have succeeded in mustering sufficient support for a flotilla to sail again over the course of this summer. As hundreds of activists are waiting dockside in the Greek port of Piraeus, the flotilla is looking increasingly less likely to get on its way as each day passes.

In the year that has followed the incidents of the 2010 flotilla, much has changed. In the days following the flotilla incident, the Turkish government withdrew its ambassador from Tel Aviv in a show of anger. Relations between Israel and Turkey went into freefall as military exercises were cancelled and Israeli tourism to Turkey all but evaporated. The reaction by the Turkish government was largely as a result of the support that it provided to the IHH, the main Turkish organisation that backed the flotilla. Now, more than 12 months later, the situation is very different. The report by the UN Secretary-General into the flotilla incident has confirmed that Israel and the IDF acted lawfully in preventing the flotilla from entering Gaza. Despite criticising the IDF for excessive use of force, this report is one of a number of events that have left Turkey isolated internationally. Another contributing factor to its isolation are the events in Syria over the past few months. Turkey has been forced to re-examine its relationship with Syria (and Iran) in light of the Arab spring uprisings. Rather than being in a situation to flex its muscles against Israel, Turkey is suddenly looking again for a way to normalise relations in order to find its way back into the international fold.

Under the circumstances, it came as no surprise when the Turkish government did not jump at the opportunity to support flotilla II. This also meant that the Turkish ports, which were used last year for the fleet to set sail from, had effectively been withdrawn from the flotilla's use. Other governments, most notably Ireland, Cyprus and France, have also come out with statements that withdraw their support from the flotilla. The decision by the flotilla to gather in Greece as an alternative, has proven to be fraught. Greece is going through its worst economic crisis in decades, and general strikes have crippled the country's ports. Not only has it been completely impossible for the flotilla's activities to squeeze a mention in the Greek press, they will need to be very lucky to find a way to set sail from Piraeus at all.

Buoyed by the support offered to its activities by the UN Secretary-General's report, the Israeli government has set about planning its response to the arrival of the next flotilla. The navy has been using its experience of flotilla I to work out a more precise plan of action to prevent flotilla II from nearing the coast of Gaza. There is a much clearer understanding of what may await the navy in the event that the ships reach the edge of Israeli territorial waters, and they have a plan to quietly guide the ships into the Israeli port of Ashdod without any loss of life, injuries or screaming international headlines.

The propaganda war has already begun, with Israeli intelligence announcing that those who are gathering in Greece are not only those with humanitarian objectives on their minds. A number of well-known names who have been involved in pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli activities, have already been identified amongst the participants. Concerns have also been raised about cargo which has been loaded onto some of the ships, and some of it seems to have a militant rather than humanitarian purpose. Israel has been accused of sabotaging two of the vessels by damaging their propellers, and rendering them unable to sail. Unconfirmed reports have suggested that some Israeli lawyers have tied the flotilla up in legal red tape by issuing legal suits against the insurers of the flotilla, and the providers of satellite information to the flotilla's ships. It is hoped that this may result in these providers withdrawing their services from the flotilla, thereby preventing the fleet from being able to sail.

In the latest move, the Greek government has issued a legal order preventing the flotilla ships from leaving Greek ports. One ship that tried to defy the ban was firmly but politely escorted back to port by the Greek coastguard. It seems that it will now take a super-human effor to get this flotilla onto the high seas. The activists have vowed to set sail tomorrow with whichever vessels they can muster together. Even the most optimistic scenario does not show that this flotilla will be any sort of success story.

Perhaps this is the ultimate justice. One has to question the intentions of the 350 activists who finally gathered in Piraeus, after initial estimates that 1,500 would join this flotilla. Conditions in Gaza are far from ideal, but the situation is also not what is presented by the flotilla members. Recently, the deputy director of the Red Cross in Gaza was quoted as saying that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Although many people are dependent upon international aid, the aid is getting to the people who need it. This is in stark contrast to many other parts of the world where needy people are not getting access to the aid. One can, therefore, only assume that these activists have the intention of making a political statement against Israel rather than coming to truly help needy people. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the Israeli government will do all that it can not to allow these people to approach the coast of Gaza. If anybody is to address the real cause of the poverty and misery in Gaza, the protest would be directed at Hamas. For it is Hamas, more than the Israeli government, that truly has the well-being of the citizens of Gaza in their control.

It seems as though the flotilla may be thwarted if it cannot depart within the next two or three days. Mounting frustration on the part of the activists, caused by wasted time and dwindling funds, may ultimately prevent the sailing from going ahead. With the lack of real positive intention on the part of many of the flotilla participants, there will be few people mourning the death of this flotilla. Like any sovereign country, Israel has the right to protect her territorial waters from both the infiltration of weapons that are designed to murder her innocent civilians, and from those who wish to create heroes out of murderers. If this is all about humanitarian aid, Israel has already agreed to pass the humanitarian goods to the people in Gaza. The truth is that this is an attack on Israel hiding behind the guise of humanitarian aid. Under these circumstances, Israel will never allow these vessels near Gaza.

Five Years and No Signs of Life

2011-06-26T21:00:00.002+03:00

Yesterday marked the fifth anniversary since Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas operatives on the Israeli side of the Gaza border. Five unrelenting years have passed without any outside organisation having been allowed access to the young soldier at all. His parents have fought a tireless battle to keep their son's name on the agenda of the politicians, and on the lips and in the conscience of all members of the public.

How can such a situation arise, that five years are allowed to pass without any meaningful progress in securing Gilad's release? Even Terry Waite was not forced to endure this length of captivity, and was released before 5 years had passed. The psychological impact on Waite of those years behind bars was dramatic (see The Long Waite), so what can we possibly hope for Gilad, if and when he is released?

The intentions behind Hamas's decision to capture and hold Gilad were always based on pure evil. It was their view that they would be able to secure the release of Hamas terrorists held in Israeli jails, to allow them to return to kill and maim Israeli civilians. This view has been strengthened by the never-ending negotiations that have been ongoing between Israel and Hamas for the release of Gilad. These talks, sometimes facilitated by German mediators and sometimes by Egyptians, have focused on the number of Hamas prisoners that will be released, the specific names on the list and whether they will be released to the West Bank, Gaza or elsewhere. The Israeli demand is a simple one - to release Gilad safely into the hands of his parents. When dealing with organisations like Hamas (or like Hezbollah in the case of the capture of Terry Waite), their evil seems to know no bounds. There is no way of knowing what they might truly be prepared to agree to in order to release Gilad, and to what extent these protracted negotiations are simply a game to keep their name in the international headlines. The last communication and sign of life from Gilad was more than two years ago. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has repeatedly been denied access to him, contravening all international accepted norms in this respect. The latest appeal by the ICRC last week showed major concern about his well-being on their part. This time, they did not demand a sign of life, but immediate access to him. As before, the request was refused.

As time goes by, things certainly get worse. This applies particularly to the possibilities of seeing Gilad alive again. The capture of Israeli Air Force navigator Ron Arad is proof of that. Arad was captured in 1986 after bailing out of his plane over Lebanon. He was variously reported to have been held in Lebanon, Syria and Iran, but has never been seen since. A secret Israeli military report claimed that he died of an illness in 1995. The problem is that those that originally captured him were reported to have had no idea where he was, or who held him by that time. The trail became remote and cold. Simply to follow the track of where he was, and under whose responsibility, became an impossible task. The same danger exists for Gilad. Some of those who were involved in his original capture have been killed in operations with Israeli forces. Is he still being held in Gaza, or has he been smuggled via the tunnels into Egypt and then to who-knows-where? The more time that passes makes the tracking of his whereabouts increasingly difficult, and the prospects of his safe release increasingly remote.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has appointed mediators on behalf of the government to focus on this one matter, to bring Gilad home via a negotiated deal. He has accepted the involvement of the German and Egyptian mediators to resolve the issue. This has all been to no avail, as the ultimate goal has yet to be achieved. His latest statement on the matter is no different than the previous ones he has made. This amounts to stating that complying with the Hamas request for a prisoner swap would endanger too many Israelis. This is reference to the fact that those who would be released in terms of Hamas's demands are those terrorists who have killed Israelis, and would do so again. He is, of course, showing some respect to the families of those who have been killed by these evil beasts. The problem is that, by keeping them in jail, no lives can be returned. By releasing them from jail, there is a life that can be returned. This must surely be the main consideration.

I don't accept the statements by the prime minister, that the deal cannot be done because too many people's lives will be endangered by doing so. While I do agree that imprisoning key individuals has contributed to a reduction in the attacks that Israel has been forced to endure from both Gaza and the West Bank, I also feel that there are ways of managing a process of releasing these beasts in return for them releasing Gilad. We have previously released individuals like Sheik Ahmed Yassin in prisoner swaps, who then immediately returned to his evil ways of orchestrating terror attacks on Israelis. He ultimately paid for this with his life when an Israeli Air Force strike killed him. Any deal to release terrorist prisoners will require extremely good Israeli intelligence to track these individuals following their release. Any sign of activities on their part to hurt Israelis, should be met with immediate action to eliminate them. Not only will this remove them and their evil ways from the picture, it will also reduce the inclination on the part of Hamas to capture Israelis to force a prisoner swap. There will be no prisoners to swap.

It is my view that there are enough terrorists running around the streets of the West Bank and Gaza willing to do harm to Israelis, such that the release of the prisoners will not make such a big impact on the situation. For every one sitting in jail, there are probably ten on the streets. Now is the time for the prime minister to act decisively. His announcement last week to rescind rights to academic study for terrorist prisoners does not go nearly far enough. The ironic calls by Hamas that this step contravenes the human rights of these prisoners is simply a joke. Since when has Hamas been concerned with human rights?

Mr Prime Minister, I call on you to accept whatever deal is on the table to bring Gilad home without further delay. This will not increase the danger in which the State of Israel lives, nor the danger that soldiers will be captured in the future. These are ever-present dangers that we are forced to live with, and confront on a daily basis. It will, however, send an important message to the Shalit family and to families up and down Israel whose children serve in the IDF. This is the message that you and the Israeli government will be prepared to do everything, everything to return our children under such difficult circumstances. The strength of this message is far more important than the message that is sent to Hamas regarding the number of prisoners that you are releasing. This decision is also likely to shape the legacy of your time in office. After all, you will forever be remembered as the prime minister who brought Gilad home. Now is the time to act, and to act soon before it is, G-d forbid, too late.

Please say a prayer for Gilad's safe return.

Cottage Cheese Wars

2011-06-20T20:00:00.001+03:00

In the Jewish calendar, we recently celebrated the festival of Shavuot (Weeks). This marks the moment of the receiving of the Torah, which encapsulates all of the laws which have formed the basis for followers of Judaism for thousands of years. It is traditional to eat non-meat products on this festival (what would a Jewish festival be without some sort of food symbol?), and cheesecake has become the symbol of Shavuot. Therein lies the opportunity for Israeli suppliers of dairy goods.

Shavuot is the peak season of the year for dairy manufacturers, and sellers of dairy products. Sales of dairy products spike dramatically in the weeks leading up to Shavuot, as most of the nation prepares their cheesecake recipes. Whether your favourite is one which is baked, or if you prefer the fridge variety, the supermarket fridges are filled with all types of cheeses and recipes to satisfy every taste bud and recipe. This is the time of the year when new cheese products are launched, and when it is impossible to even get near the supermarket fridges without being lynched by a representative of one company or another to encourage you to taste (and buy) their latest offerings. If you have no idea how to make a cheesecake, there is no need to be discouraged. You can buy a pack that contains a recipe and all the ingredients required for you to make your own, fail-safe cheesecake.

This year, dairy manufacturers took more than the usual advantage of hapless shoppers at Shavuot. Not only were they promoting their cheesy offerings in the usual relentless way, they also took the opportunity to jump the prices of many dairy products, some by more than 20%. As much as this infuriated many members of the Israeli public which is already paying up to 25% more for a basket of groceries than the average across the European Union, it did not leave much time to organise a resistance campaign before the cheesecakes had to be served up for the festival. In the days following Shavuot, however, resistance has grown dramatically to the point where it has even reached the Knesset. Cottage cheese, Israel's favourite cheese and staple for generations of Israelis, has served as a focal point around which the campaign of resistance has rallied.

Until 2006, the price of cottage cheese (along with a number of other dairy products) was controlled by regulation. Price changes had to be agreed by the government before consumers would be required to pay more at the supermarket checkout. The price controls on a number of dairy products (including cottage cheese) were lifted in 2006 to allow the market to control the price. With hindsight, this move may have been a little misguided when considering the dominant position of one supplier in this market. Tnuva still controls some 70% of the volume of cottage cheese sold in Israel. Over the past 3 years, the price of cottage cheese has risen by nearly 40%. During the same period, the price of milk to the consumer (which is still controlled by the government) rose by less than 4%. Even though it is true that the costs of many raw materials have increased recently due to the dramatic increases in the price of fuel, it is also true that the cost of cottage cheese's main ingredient, raw milk, has actually fallen by 8% over the same 3 year period. All of this points to increasing profits for the dairy companies.

The final straw that broke the camel's back for the Israeli public came with a startling revelation. Tnuva is able to provide the same dairy products consumed in Israel, to its overseas markets in Europe and the USA for a price that is up to 50% less than the price paid by Israelis. This is after incurring the additional transportation costs necessary to ship their products to the markets abroad. This points to a clear conclusion - gross exploitation of the home market and oversized profits by Tnuva. This fact has left the usually volatile Israeli temperament boiling with rage. A call to action was made, and has been responded to by more people than was ever expected.

A Facebook page was started, which called for the boycott of cottage cheese for a month by the Israeli public. Within a few days, tens of thousands of people had "befriended" the Facebook page, and sales of cottage cheese were shrinking dramatically. Supermarkets were forced to respond within days by offering all manner of discounts on cottage cheese, including selling 2 for the price of 1. The damage, however, has been done and the Israeli consumer has finally stood up to the power of the monopolies and those who collude to keep prices high. They will not rest until the price of cottage cheese is returned to a more normal level on an ongoing basis. Not only that, there are already plans to boycott a different product every month in order to target other areas where people are being ripped off. Who knows how far this could go? Could it even reach the hallowed grounds of the mobile phone operators, where collusion between the different companies has conspired to keep the prices unreasonably high for Israel's phone-crazy public for so long? I certainly hope so. There could not be a more deserving target of this boycott campaign.

There is a call for the government to reintroduce the cottage cheese pricing regulations. The finance minister has announced that he is considering the possibility of licensing foreign suppliers to import their products into Israel in order to introduce greater competition. This sounds easier said than done, with the difficulties of adhering to the laws of kashrut and agricultural regulations. The chances of this succeeding seem very remote.

As much as Israelis are very outspoken, and seemingly no-nonsense type of people, it seems as though monopolies and cartels have taken advantage of the Israeli consumer for too long. If the reduction in the consumption of cottage cheese following the call to arms is anything to judge by, a consumer revelation may have begun. And this is not a moment too soon. Each month, a different item will be targeted and brought down to size. Candidates for the next "item of the month" are not in short supply.

This is a great example of Israelis pulling together to fight those trying to take advantage of the innocent consumer. Even though there are many examples of Israelis disagreeing with each other and fighting amongst one another, this is a truly victorious moment where Israelis have stood together. This is freedom of speech and expression in the best possible light, and has proven to empower the general public in a way previously never experienced. This is almost certainly not the last of the economic boycotts in Israel.

Daylight Saving the Jewish Way

2011-06-13T21:00:00.000+03:00

One of the unique things about living in Israel, is how seemingly every-day things are done in a slightly different way to accommodate the Jewish calendar or Jewish way of living. The most obvious example of this, is the fact that the work week begins on Sunday and that Saturday is the day of rest. Even though there are some businesses open on a Saturday (particularly restaurants and other places of entertainment in certain parts of the country), it continues to amaze me how Israel has succeeded in bucking the world trend by preserving the Sabbath day as a day of rest for large swathes of the economy.

Another example of things being done the "Jewish way" is the calendar of the daylight savings clock over the summer months. When I first arrived in Israel nearly 13 years ago, the daylight savings clock was linked entirely to the Jewish calendar. In that year, the total number of daylight savings days was 170. This compared to more than 200 daylight savings days in the USA and Europe. At that stage, I quite liked the fact that daylight saving time was implemented immediately after Passover (to avoid the Passover Seder meal having to begin too late in the evening), and that the clocks were returned to standard time prior to the Jewish New Year. The change to winter time accommodated those religious Jews who have the practice of rising very early in the period prior to the new year, to add slichot (special prayers of forgiveness) to their morning routine. This is prior to the day of judgement on Rosh Hashanah, when it is believed that each person's fate for the ensuing year will be determined. Because of the large numbers of people rising early during this period, it was determined appropriate to ease their plight, and to give them an additional hour of sunlight in the morning. It also accommodated those who believe that the 25-hour fast on Yom Kippur, which follows soon after the period of slichot, is easier to negotiate if it ends earlier. The fast begins at sunset and ends at sunset of the following day. The fast is always 25 hours no matter if the clocks are set to summer or winter times. In the winter mode, however, the fast begins earlier and ends earlier. In the opinions of some, this is an easier option than beginning later and having to fast later into the next day.

Despite the fact that the Passover Seder meal and the fast on Yom Kippur are the two events in the Jewish calendar that are observed by the most number of Jews (in Israel the numbers are well above 50% of the population for both of these events), the demand that the daylight savings clock be linked to the Jewish calendar has been regarded by some as another way for the religious community to impose their will on the rest of Israel. There are two main reasons why many have opposed running daylight savings in this way. Because the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, it does not coincide in a predictable way with the solar-based Gregorian calendar. As such, it is difficult to work out exactly when daylight savings will begin and end. Microsoft was forced to remove the option for Israeli users of Windows to automatically change the time on their computers when daylight savings comes in and goes out, due to the lack of predictability of the dates. Additionally, the number of daylight savings days is consistently substantially less than other countries. It has been calculated that daylight savings days save the country significant sums of money in terms of lower use of electricity in the evening, and save lives on the roads by making visibility better during the evening rush-hour. This saving is reduced when the number of days is less, and Israel has certainly paid the price for reducing the period of daylight saving.

In 2005, it was decided to go half way towards accommodating the opposition camp by enacting that daylight savings will begin at the beginning of April each year, and will continue until the weekend before Yom Kippur. This allowed the period to be a little more predictable (at least we can determine a date on which the daylight savings will begin), while also extending the period of the daylight savings. In 2011 the number of daylight savings days will be 184 days, not quite over the 200 mark like in the rest of the world, but better than was the case previously.

The announcement last week by the Interior Minister Eli Yishai that he has decided to accept the recommendations of the special Knesset committee formed to review the policy for daylight savings, will be lauded by many. Going forward, the period of daylight savings will be determined by the civil calendar and no longer by the Jewish calendar. In the future, the period of daylight savings will begin at the end of March and will run until the beginning of October. This decision adds approximately 10 extra daylight savings days a year to the calendar, while making the dates easy to predict.

It is somewhat ironic that the decision to make this change has been made by a minister from the religious party, Shas. It would seem as if he is going against the constituency that he represents in making the change. Arguably, it is only a religious minister that could implement the new daylight saving calendar without being accused of being anti-religious. Either way, Minister Yishai has made a brave decision that is the right one for Israel.

Even though I know that this is definitely the right decision for Israel, I feel more than a touch of nostalgia about the disconnect from the Jewish calendar that this creates. I guess, what is more important for the Jewish nature of Israel is the fact that people continue to participate in the Passover Seder and Yom Kippur. I feel sure that the change in the daylight saving clock will not affect this in any way.

Israeli Econcomic Links Behind the "Arab Curtain"

2011-06-07T18:00:00.002+03:00

Many Israelis were surprised last week to discover that the American State Department had imposed sanctions on an Israeli company, the Ofer Brothers Group, for allegedly selling an oil tanker to an Iranian company. This contravenes the stringent sanctions that have been placed on Iran in response to the country's continued development of its nuclear program, sanctions which were strongly urged by the Israeli government. The Ofer Brothers Group is one of Israel's largest companies and owns Zim Shipping Lines, the world's 10th largest shipping company. The Ofer brothers, Yuli and Sami, are amongst Israel's wealthiest individuals - Sami is listed in the 2011 Forbes billionaire list as Israel's richest man with a net worth of over $10 billion. The whole episode has served to focus the minds of Israelis regarding trade by Israeli companies behind the so-called "Arab Curtain".

In recent months and years, Israel has implored the US and other countries around the world to cease trade with Iran, particularly the import of Iranian oil, in order to punish Iran for continuously ignoring calls to open up its nuclear program for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency under the auspices of the UN. These sanctions were recently implemented, and companies around the world are subject to severe penalties if they are found to be contravening the blockade placed on Iranian companies. This is particularly true of those found trading with companies that form part of the network of Iranian companies linked to the government. Nobody would ever have considered the necessity for Israeli companies to fall into line with these sanctions, as it was considered obvious that Israeli companies would not be trading with its arch-enemy, Iran. Iranian President Ahmadinejad never loses an opportunity to call for Israel's demise and destruction in public forums, and the Iranian government is sponsoring Hamas and Hezbollah, which are both engaged in ceaseless attacks on Israel. Although there are a number of countries that refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist, none can be regarded as an enemy in the same category as Iran. It seems inconceivable that Israeli companies would trade with Iranian counterparts, and it seemed an impossibility that Iranian companies would have any involvement with Israeli ones. And yet, it seems as though the Ofer Brothers Group may well have sold an oil tanker to an Iranian company (perhaps even one belonging to the Iranian government) via an Ofer Singaporean subsidiary. It turns out that Ofer ships may also have docked at Iranian ports on more than one occasion, indicating that they may have been involved in the transportation of Iranian oil.

The Ofers have come out strongly denying that they were involved in any wrong-doing. They claim not to have broken any laws during the course of their business dealings. The USA clearly believes that the Ofer Brothers Group has violated the USA and UN blockade on Iran, and has imposed sanctions on their company. It is possible that the Ofer Brothers Group may also have broken Israeli law in the process. There is also a little-known law on the Israeli statute book which was enacted during the British Mandate in 1939. This prohibits Israeli companies from trading with enemy countries. There can be little doubt that Iran is an enemy country, and the Ofers may find themselves to be in violation of this law.

This opens up something of a can of worms with regard to the activities of Israeli companies in Arab countries. Despite the fact that Israel does not have diplomatic relations with most countries behind the "Arab Curtain", the extent of Israeli trade with these countries would astonish many people. Finding Jaffa oranges in the gulf, or Israeli-developed software, security, telecommunications and water irrigation systems spread around the Arab world is already not a new phenomenon. Israelis have quietly been finding their way around Arab markets using sales people carrying foreign passports. There is a well-worn route via Jordan or Turkey which takes Israelis and their goods to countries in the Arabian Gulf, North Africa, Saudi Arabia and even Iran. In some cases, the recipients are aware of the source of their goods and choose to turn a blind eye, while in other cases the origin is somehow concealed. The question is whether these companies, some large and some small, should be prevented from undertaking their trade with "enemy countries"? Is this substantially different what the Ofer Brothers Group is accused of?

Besides earning foreign currency from these exports, Israel has also benefited from trade activities behind the Arab Curtain by being able to gain access to important intelligence information. We will never really know the extent to which intelligence-gathering activities have been tied in with some of this trade. Somehow, I have the suspicion that it has been substantial.

Interestingly, Wikileaks reveals that a secret cable from the US government in 2008 warned the Israeli government of steps taken by the US to enforce sanctions against Iran, particularly on Iranian shipping companies. It was almost as if the US government was aware at that stage of the activities of the Ofer Brothers Group, without mentioning the company's name. When the story first broke last week, a spokesman for the Ofer Brothers Group said that the company had received Israeli government approval for its ships to dock in Iran. Although the prime minister's office moved swiftly to deny this claim, I would not be shocked if the Ofer Brothers were somehow assisting Israel's network of intelligence-gathering in Iran through their activities.

In short, Israelis apply double standards when it comes to trading with Arab countries, and with Iran in particular. On the one hand, they wish countries around the world to enforce an embargo on trading with these countries to try somehow to damage their economies. On the other hand, Israeli companies wish to continue to undertake their unofficial trade with these countries to boost their own economic positions. In some cases, this trade can extend to forming part of the Israeli intelligence network as well. We may never know whether the Ofer Brothers Group has been involved in trade of this sort or not.

In the midst of huge headlines on this story and while I was writing this blog, it was announced that Sami Ofer died aged 89 of an illness that he suffered from for some time. He was laid to rest on Sunday, even while the storm engulfing his company continues. On the same day, the Knesset announced its intention to legislate the "Sami Ofer" bill. This will make it illegal in Israel to invest in a corporation that has business dealings with Iran. The punishment is proposed to be a year in prison and a fine of over $1m.

We may never find out the true story behind the story of the Ofer Brothers, and their business dealings in Iran. It is a shame that this should be the legacy left by Sami Ofer on the day that he died, as this is really undeserved. The Ofer Brothers built a business empire in Israel from nothing, and have brought great distinction to the State of Israel through their shipping companies and other business activities. It is a real pity that, at the time of his demise, the headlines attached to Sami Ofer were so negative. May his family be comforted amongst the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Last Opportunity For a Negotiated Peace?

2011-05-31T08:00:00.003+03:00

The events of the last week have proved to be significant in relation to the Middle East peace process. Their significance is more, however, about what has not been achieved rather than what has been. With the sounds of the standing ovations given him by both houses of congress on Capitol Hill earlier in the week still ringing in his ears, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be fooling himself into believing that he his trip to the USA has been a great success.

Although Bibi was well received and he was able to very clearly state what it is that Israel needs to protect her security, dignity and survival amongst the community of nations, I cannot help feeling that he has come home empty-handed. The train, which is speeding towards the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state at the UN in September, has not slowed or deviated one iota as a result of his US visit. There has been no renewed interest or initiative to bring the parties back to the negotiating table with a view to agreeing a way forward. The disputes over refugees, security, borders and the status of Jerusalem all remain unresolved, and there is no real prospect of even opening a new dialogue to discuss them anytime soon. The public relations battle may have been won, but the war is slipping away.

Time is really of the essence, and the UN vote in September is looking more and more ominous. The Arab League has unsurprisingly announced that it will support a vote for a Palestinian state, and numerous other countries have indicated the same. The problem for Israel is that there are countries which are regarded as friends and supporters of Israel, and which are nonetheless lining up to vote in favour of the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. The reason is quite simple. It is not because they are changing their support for the Jewish state. Rather, it is because the conflict has gone on too long without making any substantial progress. Countries and leaders around the world are tired of having this matter on the international agenda, and will do almost anything that is new in an attempt to get rid of the issue. The length of time that has passed has worn people down, even those who would wish to stand by Israel and support her efforts. These countries will be voting in favour of the establishment of a Palestinian state, even on a unilateral basis, to change the current status quo.

The main risk for Israel in the establishment of a Palestinian state in this way, is that the resolution is likely to cede at least two of the outstanding negotiating points to the Palestinians without Israel receiving anything in return. In its current form, the resolution for the establishment of the Palestinian state talks about the 1967 borders, and about East Jerusalem as its capital. In one fell swoop, two of Israel's major objections in the peace talks will be enacted into international law by the UN. In return for the international community ceding these rights to the Palestinians, Israel will receive a bag of problems.

Assuming the UN does vote in favour of the Palestinian request for a state based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital, Israel will wake up the following morning in violation of yet another UN resolution. Israel will clearly not agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders, or relinquish its control over East Jerusalem simply because the UN General Assembly demands this. So, the Palestinians will use whatever they have, and will use every resource available to enforce the UN resolution. If things look messy for Israel now, the future prospects look even worse.

The only way for Israel to avoid this scenario is to somehow get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. As part of their agreement to continue negotiating, the Israelis should demand that the Palestinians rescind their intention of going to the UN General Assembly. They will only agree to this if the peace talks offer the prospect of delivering more than the UN will deliver. This essentially means that Israel will be forced to concede the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital just to get Abbas back to the table. Somehow, this prospect seems extremely remote.

For all his standing ovations in the congress, and the praise that he has earned back home from his own constituency, Netanyahu seems to have achieved very little where it counts. He will certainly be remembered as a prime minister who stood his ground in the Oval Office when challenged by the world's most powerful leader, but will this be enough to secure his legacy? I somehow feel that history will remember him better if he succeeds in coming to a negotiated settlement. He has already confirmed his agreement to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the future, something that previous Israeli leaders had not necessarily conceded. Bibi's challenge is now to achieve this in a negotiated, rather than unilateral way. If he achieves this, his legacy will be difficult to surpass.

What Game is Obama is Playing?

2011-05-22T21:00:00.001+03:00

US President Barack Obama chose to use the day before the visit to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu to make his long-awaited Middle East policy speech. The speech, delivered at the State Department on Thursday, has proved to be huge disappointment to all those involved in the ongoing conflicts and challenges in the region. The speech has left me quite confused about what this president is really trying to achieve in the Middle East. Judging by the reporting of his address in the press, I am not the only one who has been confused by the latest policy statements, or lack of them.

My assumption prior to the president's address was that one of Obama's main objectives in the Middle East is to prevent a vote on Palestinian statehood coming to the UN General Assembly in September, as is currently the plan. It is my expectation that such a vote, if held, would find a majority of countries supporting the declaration of unilateral statehood by the Palestinians. The Arab block would automatically support this vote, no matter what the consequences. In addition, there are many rogue states such as Venezuela and Iran which would not require much convincing to vote in favour of such a resultion. Perhaps more importantly, there are many reasonable countries around the world (including some in Europe) that have become tired of this issue on the agenda for so long. They feel that such a step would at least change the current situation which has prevailed for so long without significant progress. Many are even prepared to risk things turning worse, in the possibility that they may also improve. This is risk is preferable, in the eyes of some, rather than continue the current status quo, which has not produced anything positive until now. Ultimately, I believe that there is little prospect of a UN vote being rejected by a majority of those voting, in spite of the fact that the Palestinians are known not to support Israel's right to exist and are involved in acts of terror. The only way, therefore, to prevent a resolution from passing the vote is to prevent the vote from taking place at all. I believe that Obama is fully aware of this.

His speech at the State Department on Thursday, however, did not reveal anything which supports the idea of working to prevent a vote at the UN. The only way to achieve this is to get the peace talks back on the road, such that the Palestinians feel that they will have more to gain by reopening the peace talks than they would by unilaterally declaring statehood. In order to reopen the peace talks, the Israeli team also needs to be convinced of the vision behind the peace talks, and the fact that Israel's most pressing concerns will be taken care of under the negotitated settlement. In the event, the speech seems to have convinced neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis of the value in renewing the talks. It seems to me that there was no real attempt to try to convince either party by the statements that Obama made. Along with many others, I am searching for Obama's intentions and policy direction in his speech.

I am most amazed by Obama's reference to the 1967 borders (with mutually agreed swaps) as the basis for the Palestinian state. Not only does this contradict a letter written to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon made by Obama's predecessor George W. Bush that referred to the 1949 borders, it has also been made clear by successive Israeli prime ministers that the 1967 borders are indefensible. To expect Israel to agree to having the borders of a Palestinian state run a mere 18kms from Israel's most populous area, Tel Aviv, and to have the distance between the Palestinian state and the Mediterranean Sea being less than 10kms at its narrowest point is foolhardy. The lesson that we have learned from Gaza is that withdrawal from territory simply allows the rocket launchers to be located closer to the heart of the country. It should also be considered that substantial numbers of Israeli citizens will find themselves housed in the Palestinian state under these proposals, something that no Israeli government will agree to.

If Obama intended to make a speech about Middle East policy that was designed not to have any impact on the region at all, he has done a good job. It is not inconceivable that the president resigned himself to making a keynote speech to try to silence those who have criticised his lack of attention to this important issue, while realising that he can do little or nothing to change the current impasse. The fact that he has yet to make a visit to Israel or the Palestinian Authority area almost three years into his presidency, is a clear indication of where this matter falls on his list of priorities.

If, however, Obama does genuinely intend to bring American policy and power to stop the UN vote in September and force the parties to a negotiated agreement, he will have to do a great deal better than this. For starters, he will need to show a much greater grasp and sensitivity to the main issues and red lines held by each party. The fact that special Middle East envoy George Mitchell has quietly resigned and slipped away without a successor, will also need to be fixed quickly.

Against this backdrop, it will be interesting to observe Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to both houses of congress on Tuesday in Washington. Netanyahu has come out fighting vigorously against Obama's 1967 borders, much to the joy of most Israelis across the political spectrum. He has also tried to maintain some semblance of professionalism with Obama in order not to alienate him to completely. This balance will be difficult to continue to achieve in the future.

If Netanyahu came to Washington expecting to get help from Obama to prevent the UN vote, he will feel sorely let down. It is clear that, short of supportive statements, the Americans are either unwilling or unable to bring their influence to bear on Middle Eastern politics at the current time. This is a real shame because the parties have really been looking to the US to engineer the breakthrough that could bring peace to the region. Unfortunately, with the current policy and level of involvement of the USA government in Middle Eastern issues, a vote at the UN in September looks unavoidable.

Nakba Day - The Real Catastrophe

2011-05-15T21:00:00.001+03:00

The Palestinians are preparing themselves today for the commemoration of the day in the Gregorian calendar on which the British Mandate in Palestine ended, and the State of Israel came into being in 1948. This is the day that they call the "nakba", which means the catastrophe. I find this day to be somewhat strange as far as commemoration days is concerned, and I believe that it is without parallel elsewhere in the world.

Over the 63 years of Israel's existence, the Palestinians have used this day as a rallying point to demonstrate against the existence of the State of Israel. There are some who claim that the commemoration is really against the expulsion of the Arabs from their homes, which became part of the new State of Israel. To me, however, the Nakba is mainly about commemorating and lamenting the existence of the Jewish state. I have always seen it as a way of focusing Arab attention on opposing the existence of Israel. There is, of course, a personal and human side to the event, with millions of Arabs choosing to go into exile and become refugees. The Arab world, however, has always seemed less concerned about the human element, and more intent upon using this issue to exploit the conscience of western countries who do genuinely care about the plight of individual people, even when their own leaders do not show the same level of concern.

The fact that so many "Palestinian" refugees were created in 1948, arose purely out of the actions and advice of the Arab leaders. Despite the fact that they would wish the world to believe that Israel created this problem, the facts do not support this assertion. It is on record that the leaders of the newly created State of Israel requested the Arab residents to remain in their homes, and invited them to live alongside the Jews in Israel. The Arab leaders, however, could not accept this invitation and instructed their people to leave their homes and properties. The reason for the instruction was because they knew that the wrath of the Arab world was about to descend on Israel in the form of attacks from all surrounding Arab countries. They believed that this war would simply destroy the new Jewish state, and would allow the Arabs to return to their homes within weeks or months. History shows that Israel succeeded in repelling the onslaught in the War of Independence, and left the Arabs with a problem regarding a strategy for reclaiming their properties.

If they allowed their people to return to their homes after the War of Independence, the Arab leaders realised that this would entail some level of recognition of Israel. Instead, they instructed their hapless people to remain in refugee camps in the countries surrounding Israel. This was designed to be a pressure point on the world community to somehow go back on its support for Israel's independence. Unfortunately for the millions of men, women and children who have been forced to live in refugee camps for the past 63 years, the plan backfired. Now, when there are few people around who remember the exact events at that time, it is convenient for the Palestinians to claim that they were expelled from their homes by the Jews. This story is one which is more likely to earn them the support and sympathy of the international community in their attempts to paint Israel in the darkest possible light, and do all that is possible to undermine her continued right to exist in peace and security. It is also supports their claim that Israel is an "apartheid state", something which cannot be further from the truth.

The real nakba in all of these events, is the failure by the Arab world to create an alternative solution for the people that are now called Palestinians. Because the Arabs were so focused on finding ways to destroy Israel, they had no time or inclination to consider how to take care of their own people. During the period from 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was under Jordanian rule and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian control. There was no attempt to create a Palestinian state at that time. In fact, there were not even Palestinian people as this identity was only adopted by the Arabs after the Six Day War in 1967. Efforts were focused on destroying Israel, and there was little time for anything else. When, after the 1967 war, they realised that they were losing ground rather than strengthening their position, the Arabs changed tactics to try to eat at the Jewish state little-by-little instead of hoping to destroy Israel all at once. It is for this reason that the concept of returning to the pre-1967 borders has gained popularity in recent years. It is for this same reason that many Israelis are opposed to the idea of the creation of a Palestinian state on Israel's borders, particularly one which openly refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. This looks very much a tactic to gain a foothold, from which a more serious attack on Israel can take place.

For many Arabs whose families were formerly residents of areas which are today part of Israel, the creation of Israel was indeed a nakba for them. But the source of their catastrophe was not the State of Israel. Instead, they should be looking to their leaders who created this nakba of their own doing. By choosing to focus their efforts on finding ways to destroy Israel, the Arab leaders have failed to fulfil their responsibilities to their own people. They have allowed them to live in abysmal conditions, and without any real hope of improving their circumstances. The time has now come to accept that Israel cannot, and will not be destroyed. The choices are clear - perpetuate the nakba, or begin the important task of building a future of hope and optimism for your children. If they choose the second option in good faith, they will find Israel to be a neighbour that will help and support these objectives. If, however, they continue to choose the option of firing missiles at civilians in a belief that this will weaken Israeli resolve, the future for their own people looks extremely bleak.

Celebrations Over Bin Laden's Death Are Overdone

2011-05-08T18:00:00.001+03:00

The American people have spent the past few days celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. After 10 years of searching for him, and numerous promises to hunt him down on the part of successive administrations, US special forces finally succeeded in tracking him down in Pakistan and killed him.

I can certainly understand why Americans celebrated the death of Bin Laden. He was responsible for the first real act of war on American soil since Pearl Harbour. He humiliated American security by having his operatives work from within the USA, and by having them use US equipment to create one of the greatest losses of lives on US soil. Not only that, but he managed to expose a construction weakness in the most cruel way, to destroy one of the beacons of American entrepreneurial spirit and freedom in the centre of New York City, the city that never sleeps. Americans were never going to rest until revenge was exacted on this audacious man, if only for the Americans to reassert their supremacy. One has to give credit to all those involved that they were prepared to stay the distance, and to continue to track down their target despite the passage of 10 long years. This sends a message of determination, not only to the American people, but also to those terrorists who felt that they may have escaped the consequences of such a heinous act of terror. As far as I can tell, Barack Obama has managed to seal the legacy of his presidency by this one act. He will always go down in history as the man who hunted down Bin Laden. His very personal control and presence in the incident room watching on his video screen as the events were unfolding, will also do no harm to his image or legacy.

Obama has made every effort to maximise the publicity that he can achieve from this success. There is so much bad news that world leaders are forced to endure, and this president is no exception, that they go out of their way to make good news last as long as possible. In playing up the achievement of finally hunting down Osama, however, the president runs the risk of misleading citizens of the United States and the world. There are a few harsh realities that we as law-abiding citizens should bear in mind, despite the fact that Bin Laden is no longer a force to be reckoned with.

The first and most important reality is that the assassination of Bin Laden makes no real difference to terror activities around the world. The fact that he is no longer around does not make the world a safer place. On the contrary, his death may have stirred up a hornets' nest and may precipitate revenge violence against citizens of the free world. No matter whether the short-term outlook is better or worse, it is clear that the Al-Qaeda organisation and command-control infrastructure that has been put in place will continue to operate even without Osama at the helm. Bin Laden's death may create a martyr-figure in the eyes of many of the Muslim world, such that they may be convinced to join the activities of the terrorists. The most frightening reality of all, is the fact that the Muslim world is full of would-be Bin Ladens. There are thousands out there who would be delighted to take over where Osama has left off, and they enjoy huge support and substantial funding. State-sponsored organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah are ready and willing to work alongside Al-Qaeda and other organisations, with the intention of ridding the world of the "infidels".

Bin Laden succeeded in taking the Muslim extremist fight against the free world from the war-torn streets of Middle Eastern backwaters, to downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon. Like his arch-rival Obama, Osama's legacy is assured. He has made being a Muslim extremist "cool", and he has created a role model for future generations of Muslims wishing to oppose all that America and the free world stand for. Not only did he succeed in attacking America by using their own aircraft to bring down the bastion of freedom in New York City, he has successfully used the Internet and social media to taunt and tease those seeking him out. For 10 years, he managed to evade the world's best armies and intelligence agencies while continuing to direct further activities of terror and destruction.

As much as it was important to destroy this man in his role as the ultimate architect of terrorism, it is equally important not to allow the celebrations to continue too long. It is time to get back to work to destroy Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror organisations and cells. Unfortunately, Bin Laden was only the tip of this iceberg and the world really is not a safer place now that he has gone. If the indications prove to be correct, and Obama has succeeded in securing himself another presidential term on the back of the death of Bin Laden, he will need to move very quickly to reset the expectations of the American people. Failure to do this may risk his legacy in the future.

Palestinian Peace Perpetuates Regional Conflict

2011-05-01T20:30:00.000+03:00

The two main Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, surprised the international community with an announcement during the past week that they have reached an interim agreement between themselves. This agreement is based upon five major points including the formation of an interim unity government, the combination of their security forces and the release of each other's prisoners. It was agreed that a general election for the West Bank and Gaza will be called in approximately 8 months' time.

Hamas and Fatah have been in a state of conflict with each other since Hamas mounted a military takeover of Gaza in June 2007, and expelled the Fatah representatives who had governed the strip until then. Despite numerous attempts to reconcile the warring factions during the intervening period, the Egyptian mediators were unable to broker an agreement that both parties would sign up to. The suddent announcement last week came without prior warning that an agreement was imminent, and has given rise to questions as to how come the parties were able to come to such a quick agreement when previous attempts had failed over a lengthy period of time.

According to the parties, the agreement at this time has been facilitated by a change in the Egyptian government which was also reflected in the approach of the mediators. It is claimed that former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government was anti-Hamas. As such, Hamas was disadvantaged in the negotiation by virtue of the bias of the mediators. Now that the government has changed and the mediation team reflects this change, we are told that an agreement was reached quickly and easily. This explanation sounds a little too simplistic to me, and I believe that other forces are at play here.

The "Arab Spring", the wave of uprisings sweeping the Arab world, will certainly have had some influence on Hamas and Fatah officials in their discussions to reach agreement. It is no secret that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas administration in Gaza have both felt threatened that the "Spring" may also reach their areas of control. The substantial corruption in evidence in both areas, as well as the autocratic nature of their rule look distinctly similar to other Arab governments which have been overthrown. There can be no doubt that the empowerment felt by the downtrodden masses in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria could easily find its way to the West Bank and Gaza, with similar political consequences. As much as Fatah and Hamas have conflicts with each other, somehow the threat of a popular uprising by their people represents more of a threat to each of their power bases than the threat that they present to each other.

Another issue that may have influenced the reaching of an agreement, is the rehabilitation of Fatah in the international community. This has reached the point that there has been serious discussion about a possible vote at the UN General Assembly in September for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. This is a surprising achievement for Fatah, especially when one considers the way in which its representatives have avoided making any substantive progress in peace talks with Israel. The proposed UN vote looks distinctly like a reward for negotiating in bad faith with Israel, but it has a good prospect of succeeding nonetheless. The Hamas leaders will, no doubt, have been watching these developments closely and with some degree of jealousy. Hamas is an organisation that is blacklisted as a sponsor of terror by the US and a number of other countries. It has a bad name in the international community following the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and after unceasingly firing missiles at civilians in the south of Israel. The Hamas leadership will view the agreement with Fatah as a possible route to gain some international credibility, by taking advantage of the progress that Fatah has made on the international stage.

Fatah has carefully avoided calling an election in the West Bank since 2006 when the last Palestinian legislative elections were held. On that occasion, the elections across both the West Bank and Gaza resulted in a resounding defeat for Fatah at the hands of Hamas. Abbas somehow managed to hang on to power after the international community rejected the possibility of a Hamas-run Palestinian Authority. Although the Hamas takeover of Gaza intervened thereby allowing Abbas the opportunity to continue his rule in the West Bank, he will remember clearly the rejection that he suffered at the hands of the electorate in the 2006 election. With increasing pressure coming from both inside and outside the Palestinian Authority area for an election to be held, an alliance with Hamas seems a good way for Abbas and his Fatah faction to guarantee themselves victory. Having to share the victory with Hamas still seems a better option than the possibility of another defeat.

The agreement between Fatah and Hamas brought a swift and unequivocal response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He stated that Fatah needs to choose between peace with Hamas or peace with Israel. He made it clear that, by choosing to enter into a peace agreement with Hamas, all bets for further negotiations with Israel are off. It is clear that Israel could not consider holding peace discussions with a Fatah-Hamas alliance while Gilad Shalit remains in captivity, and while bombs continue to rain down on civilians from Gaza. This alliance may also give Netanyahu ammunition in the international community. Having spent many months claiming that Fatah is not really interested in reaching a peace agreement with Israel, and having endured a great deal of criticism that he has been one of the impediments to progress towards peace, Netanyahu is now able to point to the new Fatah-Hamas agreement to justify his claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the lack of peace.

There was no mention of the relationship with Israel in the 5 point agreement reached between the Palestinian parties, nor of any possible peace. Hamas was quick to announce soon after reaching the agreement with Fatah, that it will never recognise Israel's right to exist. Fatah made no effort to counter this position, so this is what remains on the record at this time. This may work to Israel's advantage by serving to ambush Fatah's plans to bring a vote to the UN General Assembly on Palestinian statehood. I believe that it would be much more difficult for many countries, particular European countries, to support a UN vote on a Palestinian state if Hamas is a party to the declaration of statehood.

While the Palestinians have been talking for some time about unity between the factions, my impression is that this unity agreement may well work against their best interests in the international community. Each party has its own reason for agreeing to the peace deal at this time, but I believe that it ultimately serves to buy more time for Israel just in the nick of time. The UN General Assembly vote was beginning to look like an ominous omen on the horizon for Israel, and the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence was looking increasingly likely. The Palestinian unity agreement seems to me to be one of the only acts that could have torpedoed such a possibility, and seemed unlikely until the moment that it was announced.

This underlines the unpredictability of Middle Eastern politics. It also reinforces the fact that the Palestinians are really not serious about a peace with Israel, or the possibility of living alongside Israel as good neighbours. If this was a major consideration, it would surely have been one of the points in the agreement. For now, Israel will have to continue in the knowledge that the age-old intention of the Palestinians to rid Israel of the Jews has not changed in any way.

The "Arab Spring" Sweeps Through Syria

2011-04-25T22:00:00.004+03:00

The "Arab Spring", the name given to the uprisings which are taking place in many countries around the Arab world, has reached Syria in earnest. Despite the fact that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad indicated that he thought that the uprisings would not reach his country, I wrote more than two months ago that Syria was a clear candidate for the political unrest that started in Tunisia and Egypt, and which has swept through Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East like a fire out of control.

Reports being smuggled out of Syria suggest that more than 100 Syrians have been killed by Assad's security forces over the weekend, the largest number in Syria since the start of the uprising. It seems that the situation in Syria has finally escaped from Assad's control, and he is being forced in the same direction as other countries before him. The uprisings have already claimed the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Gaddafi's situation in Libya is looking extremely precarious and one wonders what prospects Assad may have of overcoming this rebellion and retaining power. His chances of success are not looking good if the results in other countries are anything to go by.

Even though Syria has its own idiosyncrasies which makes it slightly different from the other countries whose leaders have been forced out of power, there is one common thread running through the region. Like the other countries that have been part of the "Arab Spring" so far, Syria has a dictatorial leader who has been in power for many years without having been elected in a free and fair election. It is this point, combined with the dreams and aspirations of his citizens fuelled by the Internet and international media, which is causing citizens of Syria and other countries to rise up against their leaders. Ironically, it is also access to the Internet that is bringing their plight to the attention of the rest of the world. The flow of information and pictures over the Internet is what is really providing the fuel to the fires which have been lit on the streets of the Arab capitals.

When Bashar al-Assad took the reins of power in Damascus following the death of his father, there was real optimism that things in Syria were on the verge of a major change. Bashar is an ophthalmologist who undertook some of his training in London. He is married to Asma who was born and bred in the UK. He was regarded as more worldly, and with a better understanding of western ideals than those who went before him. When assuming the presidency of Syria in 2000, he promised reform and new opportunities for his people. He expressed the wish to upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure to give Syrians greater access to the Internet and, with it, greater participation in the activities of the international world. Unfortunately, his promises remain unfulfilled and Syria remains largely the same country that he inherited in 2000.

The current uprising in Syria brings back memories of the uprising against Hafez al-Assad in 1982. On that occasion, it was the Muslim Brotherhood which mobilised tens of thousands of people to protest against Assad in the city of Hama. By use of murderous force, Assad was able to quell the uprising and retain power in Syria for both himself and his son. In Hama, however, there were no cellular phones and no YouTube video clips documenting the behaviour of the security forces for the world to see. In that sense, Bashar is forced to confront an entirely different reality. He has tried to block information leaking out to the world by closing the country's borders and limiting access for journalists. He has also tried to block Internet access by citizens of Syria to prevent them from leaking out details of the crackdown by the feared Assad security apparatus. The global village has, however, become too small and Assad has been unable to block information leaking out of Syria's uprising. One small hole in the dike has been enough to allow a flood of information to reach the outside world about what is really happening in Syria.

Despite Assad's substantial attempts to block the flow of information and images out of Syria, he has also recognised the futility of this exercise. He has requested of the security forces not to kill more than 20 people a day in their attempts to put down the uprising. This cynical order has been ignored, particularly in recent days. An equally ironic step has been Assad's announcement that he is lifting the state of emergency that has remained in force in Syria for approximately 50 years. The announcement has, however, been accompanied by behaviour on the part of the security forces which completely ignores the fact that, formally, the state of emergency is no longer in place. This state of emergency is one of the main symbols of oppression against which the people are protesting. The irony of this state of emergency is that Assad has been forced to lift it just when he really requires its provisions to control the protest movement.

In a perverse way, Syria's lack of oil reserves may ultimately save the Assad regime. Although the world is looking on with horror at the way in which Assad's security forces are trying to put down the protests, it seems highly unlikely that the world will intervene in any way. Not only are the military forces of the free world stretched to their limits with ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, there seems little incentive for the world to become involved in Syria. This fact may give Assad a free hand to emulate the actions of his father in Hama almost 30 years ago to also squash this dramatic challenge to his power. In spite of the images reaching our TV and computer screens from Damascus and other Syrian cities, it seems as though Bashar will be allowed to do almost whatever he likes. The only remaining question is to what lengths Bashar will be prepared to go to defend his realm.

For Israel, the unrest in Syria creates mixed emotions. On the one hand, while Assad is fighting to stay in power, he has little time to devote to support the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah. This represents something of a relief for Israel. In addition, it is clear that the threat from Syria on Israel's northern border is lower than at other times, which comes as a welcome relief to the Israeli military establishment. While Assad's government is under threat and the possibility exists that Assad may be deposed, Israeli intelligence is trying to create scenarios as to what may happen if Assad is forced out of office. This is always a difficult situation to predict. While the period of Assad's rule has presented a real threat to Israel, directly from Syria and via Syria's proxy armies in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas, there is the possibility that Assad's replacement may even be worse. It is also unclear whether a change of government will bring the possibility of peace talks nearer, or further away. Sometimes, it is better the devil you know than you don't know.

It seems quite likely that the "Arab Spring" will extend into an "Arab Summer". Countries like Jordan, the Gulf States, Iran and even Saudi Arabia are not immune from the current wave of uprisings, and may find themselves next on the list. As the protests reach nearer to the heart of the major oil-producing countries causing further increases in international oil prices, countries in the west will be forced to take more of an active interest. If the current crisis in the Arab world cannot be brought under control in the near future and have a further negative effect on the economies of western countries, we may see the impact of the "Arab Spring" depose western leaders such as Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel and others via a ballot box revolution.

The Eichmann Trial - 50 Years Later

2011-04-18T18:14:00.000+03:00

Last week we marked the ominous date of 11 April. Fifty years ago on this day, one of the most remarkable and important events in the history of the State of Israel began. This was the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. The trial was dramatic in every respect, and ultimately saw Eichmann convicted on all charges. He remains the only criminal ever to have been sentenced to death by the Israeli legal system. There can be no greater irony than the fact that this Jew-hater has on his death certificate as his place of death - Ramla, Israel. In my view, this says everything about Eichmann's failure to complete his work on "The Final Solution", despite having the blood of 5 million innocent men, women and children on his hands.

In the fifty years that have passed since Eichmann's trial we have had the chance to digest the events of the trial, and to absorb its significance. There can be no doubt that this trial played an important role in the rehabilitation of the Jewish people in those tumultuous years that followed the end of the Shoa - the holocaust. A number of new facts have also come to light which have served to reinforce the extent to which the verdict reached in the trial was correct and just. Some of these facts have also left us pondering on what may have been. As it turns out, the daring raid in suburban Buenos Aires to capture Ricardo Klement (the alias that Eichmann assumed when he fled Germany) came very close to capturing another Nazi war criminal, Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele. It is understood that Mengele managed to evade capture by relocating only two weeks before the raid was launched to capture him and Eichmann. This followed many months of surveillance by the Mossad to make sure that they had the right men.

In his trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann used the so-called "Nuremberg defence". This was the same defence used by those who were tried in the post-war Nuremberg trials. In all cases, those on trial declared that they were simply following orders and were not murdering millions of people of their own volition. In Eichmann's case, this fact was proved untrue at the time of the trial, and has been proved to be untrue numerous times since then. When Himmler ordered the extermination of Jews to stop and all evidence of the Final Solution to be destroyed, Eichmann was furious with this turnabout and decided to continue exterminating Hungarian Jews against official orders. Ultimately 800,000 Hungarian Jews were killed, many of whom were murdered after the order to stop.

Eichmann's guilt is further reinforced in my mind by the fact that he never once expressed remorse or regret for his actions. On the contrary, he seemed proud of them and admitted all the actions that the Nazis took to exterminate the Jews and others. In an astonishing letter that has recently been uncovered, Eichmann wrote in 1956 to German Chancellor Adenauer requesting that he be allowed to return to Germany. He was tired of living in anonymity in Argentina, and wished to return to Germany to recapture the fame and glory that he had enjoyed during the time of the holocaust. Reports say that Adenauer, who was already hiding the presence of a number of former Nazis in his government, never responded to Eichmann's request. Eichmann's audacity and lack of any regret are, however, plain to see.

For survivors of the Shoa who had made a new life for themselves in the new Jewish state, the trial represented a painful experience, but also one which cleansed them of an enormous burden. To be forced to relive through the trial the horrors which they were forced to endure at the hands of Eichmann, and other butchers like him, was enormously difficult. It did, however, offer an opportunity to show that there was resistance against the Nazi genocide machine. Standing up to the Nazi war machine without weapons or an army was an impossible mission. Despite this fact, there were countless acts of opposition and resistance which had gone undocumented until that point. Finally, they were able to cast aside the widely-used accusation that the Jews of Europe went to the gas chambers like lambs to the slaughter.

The trial also allowed the Israeli legal system to be shown in its best possible light. That such an evil person, who had summarily executed so many innocent people without the benefit of a hearing, could be given his day in court and given access to all aspects of a democratic system of justice was a real triumph. He was given the opportunity to appeal his conviction in the High Court, sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal, and then to the president of the State of Israel. Ultimately, the evidence was overwhelming and the death sentence was passed for the first and last time in the State of Israel. Eichmann's wife, Vera, wrote to Israeli President Yitzchak Ben-Zvi requesting clemency for her husband. In rejecting her appeal, Ben-Zvi wrote a quote from the first book of Samuel in his own hand on the telegram received from Vera, "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." With that, Eichmann's fate was finally sealed.

After his execution, Eichmann's body was cremated and his ashes sprinkled in the Mediterranean Sea beyond Israel's territorial waters. This ensured that no place of mourning or place of worship would be available to family, friends and supporters of one of the world's most prolific murderers.

One of the lessons learned from the Shoa has been embraced by the State of Israel more than any other. This is the lesson that it is necessary to have an organised fighting force to protect Jews wherever they may be. This we now have in the form of the Israel Defence Force, one of the world's strongest and most respected armies. As we approach Passover, the festival of our freedom from slavery, we also celebrate the freedom from the evil that the Nazis brought upon our people. We now know that we have the freedom of our own country and army, that prevents such a thing from ever happening again.

Chag Pesach sameach - happy Passover to all.

Who Would Fire a Missile at a School Bus?

2011-04-10T20:00:00.001+03:00

Just when I thought that I could no longer be surprised by the evilness of Hamas and its random missile attacks on Israeli civilians, the organisation has succeeded in surprising me even further. The event that has caused my shock, horror and outrage was an attack by a Hamas anti-tank missile on a school bus outside Kibbutz Saad near to the Gaza Strip on Thursday. This was one of 45 rockets and mortars fired at Israeli territory within a 3 hour period on that day.

The barrage of rockets and mortars coming from the Gaza Strip over the past few weeks has been unrelenting. The fact that most of the missiles have been fortunate enough to land in open territory not causing damage to property nor injuries is more good fortune than anything else. Hamas has shown its willingness to target Israeli civilians in an indiscriminate fashion, by firing missiles in the direction of residential neighbourhoods of any city, town, kibbutz or moshav within firing range. The missiles that it has been using have been increasing in their range and accuracy. This means that Hamas can no longer hide behind the notion that its fighters are unable to pinpoint the target towards they fire. It is clear that they increasingly have the ability to fire their missiles with a high degree of accuracy. How else can one explain the direct hit on the school bus on Thursday?

Surely, firing at a school bus is the lowest form of terror warfare available? In my eyes, it is the equivalent of bombing a kindergarten or a hospital. It is the most cowardly act available, and is used only by those wishing to attack the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. In the case of the Israeli school bus that was destroyed, it is only by the most miraculous of circumstances that most of the schoolchildren had got off the bus only moments before it was attacked. Nonetheless, 16 year-old Daniel Aryeh Wildfich remains in a critical condition in hospital after taking the brunt of the explosion at the back of the bus. The bus driver, who was the only other person on the bus at the time that it was attacked, was also badly injured.

During the entire period of conflict that Israel has been forced to endure with the Palestinians, IDF soldiers are constantly reminded of the fact that there are innocent civilians caught up in this war on our side and on theirs. Our soldiers are continuously trained to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. Not only does this save death and injury to innocent bystanders to the conflict, I believe that it preserves our humanity and sanity in a very testing situation. Even where civilians are caught up in the conflict, it is important for our soldiers to be able to come home and to feel deep inside themselves that they have done all that they can to prevent innocent people from being hurt during the course of defending the safety of their homeland. I wonder to myself how it is possible to look at yourself in the mirror and know that you have been responsible for serious injuries caused to a 16 year-old child on a school bus, who had not quite reached his grandparents' home on his way from school. I also wonder how the world can stand on the sidelines and protect the rights of terror groups which follow policies to kill and injure innocent civilians. There is something inherently wrong in allowing this to happen at the same time that military aircraft are protecting the safety of innocent civilians in Libya.

Naturally, Israel has been unable and unwilling to allow such an evil attack to go without response. In this morning's newspaper, I read of 19 Hamas activists who were killed by Israeli missile strikes over the weekend. I also read of more than a hundred Hamas missiles which have been fired towards Israel over the past two days. Fortunately, none of these resulted in damage or injury. This simply continues the cycle of attack and counter-attack, despite Hamas announcing for at least the third time this week that it will implement a total ceasefire.

On the TV news last night, a reporter was sent to interview children at a school in the area which has been subject to missile fire over the past few weeks, months and years. The children were explaining to the reporter that they will be spending their Passover school holiday, which begins today, in secure areas which will protect them from missile fire. This means that they will not be allowed outdoors, but will forced to remain within reinforced buildings which have been built to withstand any rockets that may hit them. Entire communities around the Gaza Strip are currently living their lives and sleeping at night in such protected zones. Despite the fact that Pesach is the festival which celebrates our freedom from slavery in Egypt, unfortunately the same freedom will not be felt by all Israeli citizens this Passover.

I would like to think that somewhere in the Gaza Strip, somebody is feeling the same lack of freedom, and is asking himself how he could be responsible for firing a missile at a school bus. Unfortunately on this front, I fear my expectations are too high.

Goldstone Gaffes Again

2011-04-04T22:19:00.009+03:00

Judge Richard Goldstone finds himself back on the front pages of the newspapers this week, and again it seems to be for all the wrong reasons. His recent return to the headlines follows the publication of an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Friday in which he claims that the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War would have been a different document if he knew then what he knows now.

This seems to be an astonishing admission to make after the immense damage that he has caused to the State of Israel by the publication of the Goldstone Report, and the subsequent criticisms that resulted from the report. While it is a welcome development that Goldstone has finally moved publicly to substantiate many of the claims made by Israel at the time of the publication of the report, this dramatic u-turn begs many questions as to why Goldstone is only now coming clean on some of the most important misrepresentations which underpinned the conclusions reached in his report.

In his Washington Post confession, Goldstone made mention of a few important points that support Israel regarding the way in which the war was conducted. Firstly, Goldstone has confirmed that Israel did take every action possible to prevent civilian casualties, in contrast to Hamas which made every effort to aim missiles at civilian targets. Secondly, Goldstone has acknowledged the efforts made by Israel after the war to investigate all cases of soldiers behaving contrary to this policy, or missile strikes which inadvertantly claimed civilian casualties. In the case of Hamas, there has been no attempt to investigate any events that took place during the war. None of this supports the extremely serious accusations of war crimes which were referred to in the Goldstone Report. It now seems as though he is withdrawing this claim as well. Perhaps, most importantly, Goldstone has conceded that the UNHRC, the sponsors of the report and the organisation for which he worked in publishing the report, "has a history of bias against Israel which cannot be doubted".

My criticism of Goldstone at the time of the publication of his report was, first and foremost, directed at his decision to accept the mandate at all. With the virulently anti-Israel history of the UNHRC, it seemed to me to be inconceivable that Goldstone could agree to be associated with such an organisation in any way. His defenceof this decision in the Washington Post last week is centred around the fact that he was able to change the mandate given to him by the UNHRCto make it less skewed against Israel, and the fact that it represented the first time that Hamas would be investigated by a public organisation. Somehow, he had the fantasy that he may be able to reduce the bias against Israel shown by the UNHRC. The decision by the Israeli government not to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission was not directed at Goldstone himself, but rather at the involvement of the UNHRC. In retrospect, this decision seems to have been justified. Instead of Goldstone helping to even the imbalance at the UNHRC, it seems as though it is the UNHRC that has completely corrupted Goldstone.

When examining Goldstones claims of "new" facts that have come to light which have served to convince him to completely reverse his previous views, I find very little that is truly new. The reality is that, even without the cooperation of the Israeli government, all the claims about Israel's conduct during the war were available for Goldstone to read at the time of his commission. He is now largely relying on this information to make an about-turn of 180 degrees. This is all information that was freely available, and should have been considered in the original work that he did. The investigation by the Israeli government into particular incidents during the war which took place after Goldstone's commission concluded its work, is not enough in my view to completely change the conclusions of the report, and certainly not sufficiently different from information that was available at the time that the report was published.

So why would a man like Goldstone, a Jew who has until now enjoyed close relations with the State of Israel, conduct himself in such a way to cause immense damage to the State of Israel? He is a senior jurist with immense experience in the area of international law and conflict situations. He has proven himself to be astute in coping with politicised situations in his previous work. He has shown himself to support the State of Israel and some of its most important institutions. Why is it that he has behaved in this amateurish way which borders on negligence?

The only answer that I can think of, is the one that was put forward by many at the time of the publication of his disastrous report. This is that he was simply trying to promote his own personal career. It seems that Judge Goldstone had fantasies of becoming the UN Secretary-General, and that he felt that a report which pandered to the UN and its anti-Israel lobby would assist him in his cause. In the process of playing his personal political games, he has caused untold and long-lasting damage to the State of Israel. At least we can be thankful that this has completely ruined any chance that he may have had of becoming UN Secretary-General.

The Israeli government have tried to capitalise on Goldstone's latest admissions. There was talk of getting the UN to rescind the original report. There was also discussion around the possibility of getting Goldstone's confession admitted as an official document to the UN. Neither of these two possibilities are likely, especially given the UN's anti-Israel stance. In addition, the only country that has bothered to make an official comment on Goldstone's retractions is France. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, this is of no importance (or does not serve their views on the matter). The bell on this most unsavoury episode cannot be unrung.

One positive thing that can be put forward about Goldstone, is that he did come out with the admission despite the fact that this can only serve to damage his personal reputation even further. Perhaps his conscience was weighing too heavily on him, or maybe the personal attacks and pressure that he has come under since publishing the report finally got to him. He did admit that the duress and distress that he has suffered over the past few months has been difficult to handle. All credit to the organisations and individuals who took it upon themselves to pressurise him. The South African Jewish community and Zionist Federation deserve special mention for making him feel like an outcast in his own home. This action was truly justified, and seems to have played a big part in causing him to admit the error of his ways. Goldstone should be really and truly ashamed of his management of this matter. His actions are unforgivable.

Unfortunately for Israel, the drama of the Goldstone confessions will come and go, and will soon be a forgotten story. The conclusions of the Goldstone Report, however, remain on the record at the UN. This is truly shameful.

Bibi Under Fire

2011-04-03T20:00:00.000+03:00

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (known as Bibi) is a little more than half-way into his four-year term, after being elected in February 2009. Having established his government and put his policies into place, Bibi has now hit some hard times and is not currently enjoying his most successful period.

The main issues that are currently dogging Bibi took place even before he was re-elected as prime minister. Although these problems are not related to his peformance as prime minister, they are exacerbated by the few successes that Bibi has clocked up as prime minister. He is going through a particularly turbulent patch right now which threatens to undermine the remainder of his term as prime minister. There seems to be a fair chance that he will not be able to recover from the latest attacks on him. There are those who point to his current problems as "mid-term blues", the well-known down period in any leader's term which often hits when he or she reaches the half-way mark. Bibi's current troubles threaten, however, to dog his second two-year period to the extent that they may even hinder his ability to see his term through in its entirety.

The prime minister has never enjoyed a good relationship with Israel's press pack. This strained relationship dates back to his first term as prime minister, and subsequent terms in other ministerial roles such as finance minister. Netanyahu has always felt that the press is after him in some way or another, and the press has always felt that Netanyahu has not been fair to them by not giving them the stories that they need. Bibi does seem to use speeches at public events and other occasions to make significant announcements, thereby avoiding the need to call a press conference and answer journalists' questions. He recently granted an extensive live interview to YouTube as part of its World View Project. Although he was the third world leader to do this following the examples of US President Barak Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, local press point to this as one of the examples of how Bibi denies them the news that they need to stay in business.

Under the circumstances, it came as no surprise when stories were aired recently which painted the prime minister in a less than positive light. Israel's Channel 10 aired a story accusing Netanyahu, his wife Sara and their children of accepting private sponsorship for luxury trips abroad, even after his decision to return to politics as a Member of the Knesset and minister of finance. In a separate story aired on Channel 10, Netanyahu was accused of contravening the campaign funding rules by not declaring all contributions to his primary election campaign in 2005 in accordance with the requirements of the law. Netanyahu responded to these reports by accusing Channel 10 and journalist Raviv Drucker of running a continuous effort over a number of years to besmirch his name and the names of members of his family. He has filed a libel suit against Drucker, the channel and its owners on the story of the campaign funding. The suit alleges that the parties published false information to purposefully damage the prime minister's good name.

Netanyahu has denied receiving privately-funded overseas trips, and has claimed that his trips abroad were funded by organisations which invited him to speak at events to present Israel's case abroad. Sara Netanyahu has also made public comments in an attempt to separately defend her own reputation. She has long been presented publicly as somebody who revels in being the wife of the prime minister for all the privileges and overseas trips that accompany the position. She has emphasized the fact that Bibi is the world's most sought-after speaker on Israeli affairs, and has tried to paint a picture that he is somebody who is really acting in the best interests of Israel and its public image by accepting the speaking engagements abroad. Whether or not Sara Netanyahu is something of a gold-digger as presented in some of the media, there is no doubt that she uses every possible opportunity to travel abroad with her husband and live a life which lacks for nothing. She has, however, used a statement in defending the Netanyahu reputation which rings a little hollow. This is the statement that they have behaved in the same way as others in their position, and she does not understand why they should be singled out for public criticism without including the others whose behaviour they have emulated. It seems to me that the decision to blindly follow the common practices adopted by others, without considering whether these practices are acceptable or not, cannot be reasonably used as justification. This is particularly true when considering the increased scrutiny which the Netanyahus claim to be under. The State Comptroller has already announced that he will be looking into the accusations. This serves to suggest that Netanyahu may well have a case to answer after all.

If these were Bibi's only worries, he may still be in a reasonable situation. The problem is that his concerns are much broader than this. In the 26 months since his election as prime minister, he has relatively little to show in terms of real progress on matters of real importance to Israel and Israelis. Economically, Israel seems to be bumping along following world trends by showing some growth in the economy. Whatever is happening in Israel seems more as a result of external factors, than as a result of government actions. Prices of basic foodstuffs are increasing, housing prices are still increasing and salary levels are not keeping up. This is driving poverty levels up, and satisfaction down. Despite the recent deployment of the Iron Dome defence system, missile attacks from Gaza have continued and even increased. Captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit remains in the possession of Hamas without any prospects of him being released soon, and Jonathan Pollard continues to languish in an American prisson. The production of nuclear missiles in Iran continues unabated and, perhaps most importantly, the peace process with the Palestinians currently lies in tatters on the floor of the prime minister's office. According to a Smith Research poll sponsored by the Jerusalem Post and published in the Friday edition of its newspaper, nearly half (45%) of Israeli voters hold Netanyahu individually or jointly responsible for the collapse of negotiations with the Palestinians. This is only marginally less than the 53% who hold Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas individually or jointly responsible. What is worse for Bibi is the fact that fully 30% of those who voted for Likud in the last election blame him for being part of the problem with the peace process. A quarter of all voters are undecided as to who is to blame for collapse of peace negotiations. This does not represent a vote of confidence in Netanyahu's efforts. The same poll shows that only 43% of Israeli Jews feel that Netanyahu is performing well (32%) or very well (11%). The remaining 57% believe that his performance to date is poor or very poor.

The winter session of the Knesset has now come to an end, and the Passover holiday is almost upon us. This will come as a welcome break for the embattled Netanyahu camp. The prime minister will need every bit of energy and resilience that he can muster up to navigate through the heat of the summer without losing further ground. The summer promises to be challenging full of controverisal issues. With the winter having produced only 70% of the average rainfall (where 100% is insufficient to provide adequate water for Israel's growing needs), water promises to be one of the critical issues for Bibi to confront. Unrest continues to sweep its way through many countries in the Middle East. While this serves to divert the eyes of the world away from Israel for a short period of time, the changing face of the region presents its own set of challenges for the prime minister and the Israeli government.

If Netanyahu hopes to be in office for a full term of 4 years, he will need to show substantial progress on one or two critical issues to satisfy the Israeli electorate. If he is unable to do so, we will likely be facing a general election in 2012 rather than 2013 as the law requires. The problem with an election in 2012 is that there is no obvious candidate who is positioned to harness the votes of those who would wish to vote against Netanyahu. Israel is sorely in need of an alternative candidate who will not only present Israel's case in the international community, but who can also be trusted by Israeli voters to act selflessly in the interests of the country. At this point in time, no obvious candidate is emerging to fill this position, and this may be Netanyahu's saving grace.

At a time when Israel's position in the international world is under considerable scrutiny and her very existence continues to be under threat, we can ill afford to have a prime minister whose intentions are under question, and whose attention is being diverted elsewhere. Netanyahu needs to refocus his efforts, not only for his own future, but also for the future of Israel.

This Really Feels Like War

2011-03-27T22:00:00.001+02:00

The security situation in Israel has deteriorated dramatically over the past week. Although we have unfortunately become accustomed to having to endure persistent shelling from Gaza over the past few months and years, the events of the past week have even superseded that. Such has been the level of the escalation over the last 7 days, that the situation is feeling more and more like all-out war.

The latest onslaught started last weekend when no fewer than 50 missiles were launched from Gaza towards Israeli territory during a 40 minute period on Saturday. As always, missiles were launched in a random sort of way and were directed at civilian neighbourhoods. A Grad missile was launched into a neighbourhood of the seaside city of Ashkelon. Under the circumstances, it was miraculous that only two people were lightly injured in this barrage. The bombing did not let up in the first few days of the week. On Monday, further Grad missiles were fired on Ashkelon and Beer Sheva. Again, it is only due to good fortune that a few people were lightly hurt and that more serious injuries did not result. This set the pattern for the week which did not see a day without missiles being launched into Israeli territory.

The week's violence culminated on Wednesday when an explosive device detonated at a busy bus stop in Jerusalem. Although the device was relatively small (when compared to other bombs that the city has been forced to endure in the past), it was clearly intended to reap as much havoc and destruction as possible. A number of buses were at the stop at the time of the explosion, and many pedestrians were waiting or walking in the area. It was only due to the actions of one hero, David Moyal, that many more injuries and deaths were prevented. In this incident, 1 foreign national was killed and 60 others injured including children.

These events continued into Thursday when missiles were fired towards the most populous part of Israel. A missile landed not far from Rishon Le Tzion, and a mere 25km from Tel Aviv. Further missiles were fired on Friday and Saturday resulting in damage to people's homes, and it was again miraculous that deaths and serious injuries were avoided.

In the wake of the terror attack on the streets of Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to return the "quiet" that Israel has experienced over the past two years, back to its streets. It is a sad indication of our situation that the prime minister can say that we have experienced quiet despite the incessant firing of missiles towards innocent civilians. More than this, Israelis simply accepted his words without any fuss at all. This is not quiet by any independent standards, and we should not be forced to accept this situation as normal.

It is difficult to see how this situation can be brought under control without further escalation. The Israeli authorities are quoted as saying that Gaza is ruled by anarchy and it seems as though chaos is the order of the day. Although it is clear that not all the attacks have been initiated by the Hamas rulers in the Gaza Strip, they have created an environment which makes it acceptable for splinter groups to do as they please. It is increasingly difficult to know who is responsible for individual attacks or missile launches. It is obvious, however, that Hamas is doing little to prevent these attacks from taking place. Even if the attacks are not all directly initiated by Hamas, it seems clear that they are taking place with at least the tacit support of the rulers of Gaza. These attacks come and go without so much as a word of condemnation from the so-called "free world" countries.

Much is being made of Israel's "Iron Dome" protection system which is due for implementation this week, after many months of development and preparation. This is an anti-missile system that is designed to intercept the Kassam and Grad missiles which have been repeatedly launched towards Israel. The Iron Dome system is unique in that it is designed to intercept short-range missiles. They are more difficult to intercept by virtue of the fact that there are only a few seconds from the moment that the missile is launched, until it hits its target. During this short period of time, the anti-missile interceptor needs to be launched and hit its target in order to be effective. Iron Dome is designed to do this.

Ultimately, Iron Dome and similar systems will not prove to be a quick fix for the problem that we have. No matter how effective our defence systems prove to be, we will not be able to rest until we can bring a permanent halt to the firing of missiles from Gaza. Operation Cast Lead brought such a halt for a short period of time, but it was unfortunately only a temporary lull. If we are to believe the statements being made by Hamas, the only way in which they will stop their missile fire is if the Jews are no longer resident in the Land of Israel. Because this is obviously not an option, we have a stalemate situation.

The uprisings that are taking place in many countries around the Middle East form part of the background for the increase in the attacks on Israel. It seems like the protests and violence occurring elsewhere in the region are giving Hamas and its fellow terror groups further appetite for confrontation with Israel. The escalation on our doorstep feels more and more like we are headed into another war, as it is difficult to see how the violence will suddenly recede after having reached this level. This is despite statements today by Hamas that they are interested in returning to a "ceasefire" in the event that Israel refrains from its retaliation strikes. The offer of a ceasefire usually signals the need to rearm ahead of the next round of hostilities.

As much as I feel pessimistic about the prospects for a peaceful period ahead in the short-term, I also feel extremely optimistic about our continued existence in the Land of Israel in the longer-term. We are ready for the next war, both militarily and psychologically. In a sense, we are also resigned to the fact that this is unfortunately inevitable. As much as war, violence and terrorism kills a piece of our heart due to the casualties suffered, so it stokes the fire in our belly to continue to fight for our future here. This fire burns strong, and nobody has the power to extinguish it. Am Yisrael Chai - the People of Israel lives!

Being Happy on Purim

2011-03-20T20:00:00.001+02:00

Today is the day that Jews around the world celebrate the festival of Purim. The festival celebrates the victory of the Jews of Persia over the anti-Semitic Haman, who sought to have them all annihalated. It was only through the actions of Queen Esther and her uncle, the righteous Mordechai, that the king was convinced to save the Jews and to execute his trusted adviser Haman instead. To mark this miraculous event, Jewish law requires that Jews be happy on Purim. In fulfillment of this commandment, it is customary for adults and children to dress in fancy dress, and for adults to consume copious amounts of alcohol. A rabinnic ruling says that people should revel on Purim until "they cannot tell the difference between the evil Haman and the saintly Mordechai".

But how can we be happy on Purim when, only one week earlier, 5 members of the Fogel family have been ruthlessly murdered in their beds? And how can we feel safe on Purim when communities near to the Gaza Strip had to endure 50 rockets being fired by the Palestinians randomly towards Jewish homes in a short space of 40 minutes yesterday? How can we celebrate the festival when the memory of the 8 young boys who were murdered 3 years ago while sitting in the library of the Mercaz Harav religious school in Jerusalem is still so fresh in our minds? How can we revel in the miracle of Purim when Gilad Shalit remains in captitivity for the 6th year, without his basic humanitarian needs being taken care of? Does Gilad even know that today is Purim? These events and others make it difficult to celebrate Purim and feel genuine happiness from the bottom of our hearts. Despite this, we are obliged to feel happiness and joy on this festival.

It seems unusual to be commanded to have an emotional feeling as part of one's obligations on a festival. And yet, this is the situation on Purim. Our rabbis draw a link between Purim and Yom Kippurim (Yom Kippur, also translated as "a day like Purim"), which is Judaism's most solemn day. They make the point that observant Jews would not consider the possibility of not fasting on Yom Kippur if they do not feel like it. By the same token, we are expected to feel happy on Purim even if we don't particularly feel happy. This is part of our commitment to G-d and the blind fulfillment of His commandments.

In spite of the sadness that many parts of Israel are feeling, Purim was celebrated today as usual and as in previous years. The parades in towns and cities went ahead to the sounds of blaring music and accompanied by adults and children dressed up in all manner of outfits. Young children fulfilled their fantasies of dressing up as princesses, superheros and movie characters. Gifts of food were given by people to their friends, and donations made to the needy to allow all to partake in the traditional Purim feast. The story of Purim (the Megilah of Esther) was recited for all to hear, and Haman's name was drowned out by boos and graggers in the traditional way. Dressing up parties continued into the early hours. In particular, in the settlement of Itamar, a special effort was made to be happy on Purim. The fact that we were able to be happy on Purim against the background of all the other events, is a great achievement and serves to honour G-d's commandment to an even greater extent.

Wouldn't it be good if we can wake up on the day after Purim, and feel the same happiness in evidence? Unfortunately, reality will come back to roost and we will be back to dealing with our daily threats, issues and feelings of loss. All these tragic events that we continue to suffer embroider the blanket of Jewish history in much the same way as the Purim events that took place in Persia all those years ago. In some ways, things have not changed at all. As much as I hope that we will be able to work through the everpresent threats and reach a situation where we can live in peace without anybody having the intention to harm or kill us, that time has not yet come.

Just as the Jews of Persia took it upon themselves to do all that they could to secure the future of the Jewish people, we do the same today. On this, the happiest day in the Jewish calendar, we feel particularly close to those who have to make the maximum effort to be happy today. We think about the surviving members of the Fogel family, and we think about the Shalit family who fight tirelessly to return their son and brother home. We think about all the survivors of the Holocaust, and we think about those families who have lost loved ones in war or terror incidents over the past 63 years and more. We thank them for making such an effort to be happy on Purim even if there is deep pain in their hearts. This is a sign of strength and resilience that the Jewish people have, and that we are not ready to give up on this battle for survival.

Chag Purim sameach. Happy Purim.

Murder Most Horrid in Itamar

2011-03-14T08:00:00.001+02:00

Israelis came out of the weekend with a feeling of shock, horror and revulsion. Although stories of the disastrous Japanese earthquake and tsunami fill the international news bulletins and those in Israel, there is a story closer to home which is taking us back to a place where none of us wish to be. This is the story of the brutal and senseless murder of 5 members of the Fogel family in the settlement of Itamar near to Hebron.

The details of the story are slowly being drip fed to the public as the details emerge. There were no witnesses to the heinous crime as all the witnesses were killed in the devastating attack. The story as we know it so far is constructed with pieces put together by those who discovered the scene, crime scene investigators and security personnel who continue to seek out the perpetrators of the attack. It seems as though the parents and 5 of their 6 children retired to bed after their usual Sabbath meal on Friday evening. Their oldest child, 12 year-old Tamar, went out after dinner to her youth movement activity. This could well have saved her life. She was the one who raised the alarm when she found that she was unable enter the house upon returning home later in the evening. The scene that greeted her and the neighbour accompanying her, was too horrific for words. Her mother, father, two brothers aged 11 and 4, and 3-month old baby sister all lay dead in their beds. Two other siblings seem to have been saved by virtue of the fact that the murderer or murderers did not realise that there were other children in the house in a separate room. The victims had all been brutally and forcefully stabbed to death as they lay sleeping in their beds.

It is not yet clear whether the crime was perpetrated by a person on his own, or whether there were accomplices. It is also not clear why and how the extensive security arrangements which surround Itamar and other similar settlements failed the Fogel family on this occasion. These questions will be answered in due course. For now, all we can think about is the fact that three young children have today buried their parents and three siblings. This is surely not the natural circle of life, and yet it is all too frequent in the reality of Middle Eastern politics.

Other questions abound as we absorb the full scale of this horror. What sort of person can enter the private home of people that he does not know, and take the lives of a family as they sleep in their beds? The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have been quick to claim responsibility for this attack. The announcement was tinged with a sense pride, if it is at all possible to be proud about such a cowardly act. Can the killer justify this murder by the negative experiences that he has had or the lack of justice in his life? Is this truly a like-for-like revenge act? The Palestinian Authority and Hamas both appear to believe so if we judge by their luke-warm responses to the attack. Instead of coming out and condemning the massacre without reservation, they have both chosen to put out tepid statements about how they condemn violence of any type. This is not good enough, and surely sends a message to the Palestinian people that their leadership lends tacit support (if not open support) to such terrorism.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a real war. It is a war that has been ongoing for more than 60 years, and shows no signs of abating anytime soon. It is a war that has claimed many casualties over the years. In war, there are casualties. Some of these are so-called "collateral damage", innocent civilians who accidentally happen to get in the way of genuine military conflict. The act of killing parents and children as they lie sleeping in their beds, however, does not qualify as "collateral damage". This is more like genocide. Even in a war situation, this type of behaviour can never be justified under any circumstances. Anybody who lends even the slightest justification to such a horrendous crime bears some responsibility for it, and its gruesome consequences.

The Fogel family was a religious and patriotic family. They loved the land of Israel, and believed that all parts of the Greater Land of Israel belong to the Jewish people. They were formerly residents of the Gaza Strip before they were forcefully removed by the government during the disengagement from the strip in 2005. They moved their family to re-establish themselves in the settlement of Itamar near to the West Bank city of Hebron. Their politics brought them into conflict with many Palestinians who lay claim to the West Bank and, indeed, much of the Land of Israel. They had witnessed the government take their home in Gaza and hand it over on a golden platter to the Palestinians. Since then, the Palestinians have done nothing useful with the land, nor the homes and businesses that were given to them. This was the background against the Fogel family moved to live in Itamar, and to die there.

The personal tragedy suffered by this family is currently overwhelming in its intensity. The political ramifications are, however, substantial and significant. How can the Israeli government be expected to agree to establish a Palestinian state on its borders when this type of behaviour is prevalent, and is likely to continue? The act of handing the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians has proved that no amount of territorial concessions will be enough unless it is all the land that we have. The worst part about this and other acts of terror, is the fact that the Palestinian Authority lends them some level of support. This is not creating a situation conducive to peace. With acts like this, it is clear that a peace agreement can never work in such an environment.

My thoughts go out to the family and to the mourners. May they be comforted amongst the mourners of Zion during this hour of extreme grief, and may they know no further sorrow. May the memories of the deceased be for a blessing.

Everything is Permanent Until it is Changed

2011-03-07T11:00:00.002+02:00

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced last week that he was changing his tactics with regard to the negotiations with the Palestinians. Until now, his position on the peace talks was that he was not prepared to enter into any "interim" agreement. Instead, he wanted to strike a "permanent" agreement which includes agreement on all the so-called final status issues. Now, he has changed his approach and says that he is willing to come to an agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of "temporary" borders. Despite the different language being used, has anything really changed in his approach?

It is not entirely clear what was driving Netanyahu’s original position to prefer a permanent solution rather than a temporary one. My interpretation is that he was trying to delay the declaration of the Palestinian state by position himself to reach agreement on all the most difficult issues before the state is established. The unresolved issues with the Palestinians have been dividend into issues that can be solved in the near-term, and others which should be delayed until later to be resolved (more contentious and difficult). From the outset when late Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin initiated the dialogue with the Palestinians, he believed that it would be better to show initial success in getting some of the easier points agreed before tackling the more difficult issues at a later date. This approach gave rise to the so-called “final status issues” which referred to the more difficult points such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees etc. which were to be delayed until later. There are those who believe that Netanyahu was employing a tactic to look like he was making progress, while not really making progress at all. Netanyahu is actually on record as saying that he thought that the final status issues could be resolved within a year. I am not sure that there were many who believed him when he said it, and the lack of progress more than a year later has proved their scepticism to be well founded. Was Netanyahu really saying that he did not want to come to any agreement with the Palestinians at all? I am not sure, but I believe it would be difficult to prove this.

The difference between what is temporary and what is permanent is a matter of interpretation. Everything is temporary, even whatever is permanent, because things change all the time. By the same token, everything is permanent until it is changed. So the terms temporary and permanent are really used simply to invoke some sort of human emotion and expectation about the direction and speed of how things will evolve. The truth about Middle Eastern politics is that it is enormously difficult to change anything. So even the so-called temporary agreements prove to be somewhat permanent because they are often difficult to change afterwards. I think that it is the last point which may have contributed to Netanyahu’s change of approach over the past few weeks.

If he decides to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state with “temporary” borders, not a great deal changes from today’s situation. He is not forced to compromise on the difficult issues such as the status of Jerusalem, West Bank construction and the possibility of having to give up towns and settlements with substantial Jewish populations. Instead, he can agree to the establishment of the new state in the current configuration, by sending out the message that it is "temporary". Although agreement to the formal establishment of a Palestinian state will have dramatic political ramifications, the situation on the ground is unlikely to change much. The Palestinian Authority already rules over this land, so this aspect does not change. What changes is the level of international representation and recognition that such a state will have. Most importantly, such an act will serve to substantially reduce the international pressure that Netanyahu is currently under to agree to this state being established.

As soon as the temporary agreement is reached and the international pressure recedes, the daily reality of relations between Israel and the Palestinian state will probably continue along the same lines as today. The interdependencies between the two entities will not change dramatically and the security cooperation will continue as it does today. The unresolved final status issues will probably remain open for some time, as the pressure to agree these will decrease due to the fact that the Palestinians will have a state of their own. This temporary situation may, in fact, continue for tens or even hundreds of years in the current climate of the Middle Eastern politics.

What is likely to change once a Palestinian state comes into existence is the accountability of the Palestinian government. Today, it is a corrupt government that is not accountable to anybody except itself. Palestinain government officials frequently hide behind the fact that they do not have the same responsibilities as other countries as they are not an independent country. Their change of status will hopefully also mean that the international community will require certain standards of behaviour in the same way that these are demanded of other countries in the international community.

Netanyahu’s change of tactic superficially appears to change things substantially and, in some respects, it does bring about a big change in substance. I believe, however, that it reinforces the current status quo in more ways. It seems to me that the momentum towards the establishment of a Palestinian state is now unstoppable. Netanyahu recognises this, and will want to be seen to be supporting this process now that it is inevitable. At the same time, will wish to preserve as much of what he has at the moment without having to agree to give a great many things up. His idea of agreeing to the establishment of a state based on “temporary” borders is likely to satisfy the international community while not changing much on the ground.

The "temporary" solution seems to be Netanyahu's best chance of getting what he wants on both sides of the fence. This goes a long way to explaining his sudden change of heart.

Game Over For Gaddafi

2011-02-27T21:00:00.001+02:00

Just when I thought I had witnessed the most unexpected events in the Middle East, the story of Libya reveals itself to be more surprising than anything I have seen to date. The fact that the uprising that is sweeping the Middle East has reached Libya is not the surprise. Colonel Gaddafi's authoritarian style was always going to be under attack as soon as his people had sufficient support and confidence to rebel against him. What has been most shocking for me is the way in which some of Gaddafi's closest circle have rebelled against him without being pushed very hard.

First was the strange story of two Libyan Mirage fighter jets that arrived in Malta last week. We were led to understand that the pilots had defected from Libya with their planes after they were ordered to bomb protestors who had taken over Libya's second-largest city, Benghazi. Considering that pilots are regarded amongst the elite of the elite of the Libyan military and Libyan society in general, I would imagine that pilots are screened to ensure their loyalty to Gaddafi and his regime. As such, they should not necessarily have conisdered an order to bomb protestors who are threatening the overthrow of Gaddafi as being something out of the ordinary. And yet, their loyalty appeared not to be as strong as I had imagined it would be. It proved not to be any match for their feeling of revulsion at the prospect of bombing their own people.

This episode was superceded by the scenes that took place at the United Nations Security Council on Friday when Libyan ambassador Mohamed Shalgham stood up to criticise his leader and childhood friend. Earlier in the week, he had spoken out in defence of Gaddafi and against the protestors. By the end of the week, however, he could no longer defend the manner in which Gaddafi was attacking the protestors in defence of his regime. He called on the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on the Libyan regime. This must surely be a unique United Nations event, when the ambassador of a country speaks out against his own government in this international forum. The Security decided in a unanimous vote to impose sanctions on Libya, and to refer Libya to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

This was followed soon afterwards by scenes of the staff of the Libyan embassy in Washington taking down the Libyan flag, and replacing it with a flag that was in use prior to Gaddafi assuming power. Even Hollywood could not have written this script.

Amongst all the pieces of information spilling haphazardly out of Libya is the fact that Gaddafi was personally responsible for ordering the hit on Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. According to a Swedish newspaper, former Libyan justic minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil said that Gaddafi personally ordered the hit on the plane. This confirms long-held suspicions that Gaddafi was personally behind this ghastly act of international terrorism.

Despite the fact that his support system is crumbling before his eyes, Gaddafi is hanging on for dear life. He is clinging on to power in Tripoli while the demonstrators have succeeded in taking control of many other cities across the country. His calls for his supporters to come out in public to show their support for him, has resulted in more violence and bloodshed. The army's support for him is wavering, and the writing is surely now on the wall Gaddafi has his supporters.

Leaders like Gaddafi are well-known for clinging onto whatever they have, and never being prepared to give up their power. This spells disaster for the people of Libya whose lives are endangered by protesting against their leader who has long overstayed his welcome. Despite the physical danger endured by the protestors, they seem to be prepared to risk their lives in favour of working to oust Gaddafi. When the situation reaches this position, there can surely be no turning back for the Libyan leader. The time has come for him to leave. The only question that remains is whether he will agree to do this without more bloodshed and loss of life. The message that he is sending, is that he will continue to fight even when the situation is hopeless.

As this revoluation blows through the Middle East, I hope that the leaders of other countries who will undoubtedly be affected, will be prepared to spare the bloodshed and violence. One of the key characteristics of being a good leader, is knowing when it is not worth fighting. Gaddafi has failed this test miserably. Is it too much to hope that other leaders in the Middle East will avoid this tragic error?

Catastrophe in Christchurch

2011-02-23T22:27:00.009+02:00

I was horrified to see the pictures of the effects of the devastating earthquake which took place in the New Zealand city of Christchurch earlier this week. And all this after having suffered a major earthquake only 5 months ago. In September last year, there was damage caused but no casualties. Unfortunately, this time Christchurch, has not been so lucky.

Casualties have mounted with almost 100 people reported dead and a few hundred still missing. The scenes of building collapses across the city of Christchurch are quite shocking to view, and the central feature of the cathedral of Christchurch remains barely a shadow of its former glory.

What is more shocking about these scenes, is the fact that New Zealand is a country which has paid a great deal of attention over the years to ensuring that buildings are built to special earthquake standards. The general public are trained to respond to earthquakes, and have frequent earthquake drills to prepare for moments like these. Despite this fact, the damage is widespread and there are likely to be many more deaths to add to the already mounting list. It could be said that the devastation would be much wider if these precautions had not been taken. Witness the impact on a country like Haiti, which had no earthquake preparations in place whatsoever. It lost hundreds of thousands of its citizens, and remains on its knees more than a year after the earthquake.

For me, this earthquake feels personal. I fondly remember the time that I spent in New Zealand and, particularly, my visit to Christchurch. I remember being entertained by the famous Wizard of Christchurch in the shadow of the cathedral that has now lost its steeple and its proud position of domination in the centre of the city. This was all part of a wonderful adventure that I had in New Zealand as an exchange student. Not only did I enjoy the beauty of the country, the people were so kind and welcoming and made me feel like I really belonged.

For now, the scene in Christchurch is covered by a black cloud. It is difficult to see past the death and damage which have been thrust upon this city over the past few days. I have no doubt, however, that the people of Christchurch will show a fighting spirit to overcome this tragedy, and will rebuild their city to be at least as good as it previously was. The people of New Zealand will ensure that this is achieved as soon as possible.

For now, my thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, who have been injured and who are concerned about missing friends and relatives. May they be granted the strength and the resilience to overcome this terrible tragedy. "God defend New Zealand".

The Challenges Facing Benny Gantz

2011-02-19T22:08:00.007+02:00

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz has now taken over as Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) after a very forgettable period in the upper echelons of the high command. He has major challenges ahead of him, both in terms of repairing damage caused over the past few month as well as confronting threats that Israel faces and will continue to face in the foreseeable future.

The very public falling-out between Minister of Defence Barak and former Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi did no favours to either of man. Although Ashkenazi was the one whose tenure was not extended by the minister of defence and he paid the price by losing his job, Ehud Barak has not come out of the incident with his reputation intact. The public holds the view that his decision to terminate Ashkenazi's term was purely personal, and did not consider the best interests of the State of Israel. In addition, the manner of doing so was unprofessional and has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the general public. Barak chose to fight his case in the public domain by using the national press to express his criticism of Ashkenazi. Despite this fact, I remain unsure exactly why Barak decided not to extend Ashkenazi's time in office. I am not alone in my confusion. It is the defence minister's right and responsibility to nominate the IDF chief of general staff, and the ultimate decision is taken together with the prime minister, and with the approval of the cabinet. This process need not take place in the eye of the general public, particularly when there seems to be a personal vendetta tied into the subject. Barak's tactics seem to me to have been flawed.

Having decided to terminate Ashkenazi, Barak then proposed Yoav Galant to be his replacement. It appears as though Barak was aware of the furore surrounding Galant's "land grab" at the time of his appointment, and this surely reflects negatively on Barak's choice. The dirty issue in question involves a dispute between Galant and the Israel Lands Authority about hundreds of square metres of land surrounding Galant's personal residence, which Galant is accused of grabbing for his own personal use when they don't belong to him. If Galant had any sense, he would have ensured that this issue was taken care of long before his appointment to succeed Ashkenazi as the head of the IDF. Instead, he allowed the problem to fester and, when it finally came out into the public domain, it prevented him from taking office. The government's attorney general and the government's comptroller both produced independent reports on the matter ruling that Galant has a case to answer for the land grab. Quite rightly, the cabinet decided to terminate Galant's appointment even before he took office. Barak is again the guy presented as having taken the incorrect option and Galant's promising career has been summarily terminated.

So now, the task of restoring the reputation of the office of the chief of general staff falls to the new man Benny Gantz who was hastily appointed after Galant was prevented from taking office. Although their names are similar, that appears to be where the similarities end. Not only does Gantz now have the enormous task of keeping Israel battle-ready in a changing world, he is also required to undertake substantial political repair work to restore reputations and working relationships. Gantz seems, for now, to be the right man for a most difficult job. He has started off on the right leg by maintaining a low profile while simply getting on with his job. He has not made any major political statements or public appearances. Instead, he has done exactly what is required of him at this time. He made his appearance at the prime minister's office to be awarded with his promotion in rank to that of Lt. General, after which he was sworn into office at a parade at the IDF high command in which he was inducted as the Israel's 20th chief of general staff. He immediately got to work without public fanfare or media interviews. He is, of course, a public figure and will inevitably appear in the media in the future. For now, however, he needs to keep his profile low and the level of his achievements high. He seems to understand this.

Gantz has taken over the command at one of the most interesting periods in Middle Eastern history. The flames of revolution are sweeping through the region at a pace that could not have been previously predicted. After uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt which have already succeeded in forcing the resignation of the rulers in those countries, protests are taking place in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran. Opposition forces in these countries have been encouraged by the successes witnessed, particularly in Egypt, and this is likely to begin to take hold in other countries too. It would not surprise me if this spreads to Syria, Jordan, other countries in the Emirates and even Saudi Arabia. All we can do is sit back in wonderment at the speed with which this change is taking place.

In his previous position as deputy chief of general staff, Benny Gantz was responsible for putting together the IDF's plans for 2011. With only 6 weeks of 2011 behind us, and less than a week into his new job, I wonder how relevant these plans are given the changes that are being experienced. While the successes achieved by the protestors seem good for democracy and freedom of speech, it is difficult to know exactly what types of government will replace the ones that are currently being dismantled. It is not inevitable that the new governments will be better, or more democratic, than the old ones. In the case of Egypt, the tearing down of Mubarak's government has left a dangerous vacuum that may spell more trouble than progress. The same may be the result in other countries where protests are taking place. Succession planning has not been big in the Middle East, and this creates its own set of dangers.

As Gantz gets his feet under his new desk and begins to take control of the situation, I wonder whether he might not have preferred the 2010 situation to the one that he finds in 2011. It is true that 2010 saw many hostile nations surrounding Israel with the threats that such a situation brings. But this hostility was not a moving feast. He will need to prepare himself for changing situations in many of these hostile nations, bringing the threat of more active hostility and threats to Israel rather than the simple lack of recognition, lack of diplomatic relations and public posturing and rhetoric that has characterised Israel's relations with many of these countries in the past. The hostility now runs the risk of being much more active and threatening to Israel's continued safety and survival. This is particularly true of the situation in Iran which continues with its program of constructing nuclear weapons. In the wrong hands, these could have devastating consequences for safety in the Middle East, and around the world.

Benny Gantz has a huge job on his hands. Taking over as the IDF's chief comes with massive responsibilities and challenges, even under "normal" circumstances. The particular situation which confronts Gantz comes with even greater challenges and pitfalls. It is our wish that he will succeed in carrying out his new job with much success and by bringing greater security to the State of Israel and her citizens. It is my hope that he will also be able to restore some sorely-needed pride and credibility to the political hierarchy of Israel's security establishment.

Life After Mubarak

2011-02-13T21:00:00.000+02:00

Even though I have written twice over the past month about the uprising in Egypt, it is difficult to ignore the tumultuous events that have taken place over the past few days. Mubarak finally gave in to the will of the Egyptian people, and resigned as president late on Friday. This was only after he found the audacity to continue to cling onto power when it was clear that his position was no longer tenable. Mubarak left office as he had ruled for 30 years - thinking firstly of himself, and taking little consideration of what may be best for his people.

Now that he is gone, what happens next? Mubarak ensured that he had no logical successor, and nobody to hand control of Africa's most populous country to. He was so concerned about the possibility of his absolute rule being undermined, that he was not prepared to allow anybody to be close to him. Ultimately, he was shown that even this did not safeguard his position. More of a disaster for Egypt is that no successor or succession plan was put in place. One of the hallmarks of a true leader is that the ensure that they have succession. They should have either a person, or a process to select a person, that can replace them in the event of a disaster or through the logical flow of events. Even though leaders like Mubarak think that they are irreplaceable, cemeteries around the world bear testimony to the fact that nobody is irreplaceable.

The Egyptians are left with military rule as this was Mubarak's only option in view of the vacuum that he has left in his wake. For now, the people are happy - anything is better than Mubarak. It is clear clear, however, that military rule cannot and will not satisfy their demands and expectations in the longer term. Military rule is generally associated with a rule by decree and a distinct lack of democracy. I feel sure that the military rule in Egypt will not be any different. This will only be acceptable if the military government moves quickly to call general elections, and allows itself to be rapidly replaced by a leader and government that is chosen by a majority of the people. The protest movement has made this clear by an announcement of its intention to hold a protest each Friday in Tahrir Square until democratic elections are called.

There are times in life when people know that they don't like what they have, but have no real alternative plan that represents what they DO really want. I have the impression that this is the situation in Egypt. The protest was against Hosni Mubarak, but the protest organisers and opposition movement never came up with an alternative plan to fill the gap once they succeeded in achieving their objectives. This can be compared with protests in a country like Poland which rallied behind Lech Walesa, or in South Africa where Mandela was the man that the opposition wished to see replace the rulers. In Egypt, they had no replacement in mind to be somebody who would represent new Egypt that protesters have been dreaming of. Under these circumstances, the new Egypt may turn out to disappoint those who so fervently fought for it during nearly three weeks in Tahrir Square. People are sometimes advised to be careful what they wish for, as they may get their wishes. I believe that this may turn out to be the case in Egypt.

Democracy has not yet proved itself as a success in the Arab world. Democracy incorporates some principles which have yet to manifest themselves in this region. The main issue with democracy is that it requires those who are defeated to acknowledge that they are in the minority, and to respect the will of the majority. For residents of the Arab Middle East, this point has yet to be successfully implemented. Examples like Iraq and Lebanon come to mind, where violence and murder are the order of the day due to the fact that the minorities cannot accept the will of the majority. Ahmadinejad in Iran went to inordinate lengths to rig the most recent general election to ensure that he was returned to power. Then, he moved to silence the majority in the most brutal manner to secure his term of office. It seems like the only stable governments in the Middle East (except for Israel) are those where the rule is absolute and no opposition is tolerated. In other cases, violence and chaos reign while minority groups attempt to assert their domination. Compare this to the general election in the USA in 2000 when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by a hair's breadth. The Gore camp was not happy with the outcome, and did not agree with the supreme court's ruling which prevented a third count of the votes cast in the deciding state of Florida. The decision was, however, accepted without violence and recriminations. This is the real meaning of democracy.

As much as I know that the people of Egypt have been protesting in favour of democracy for their country, I am yet to be convinced that Egypt is ready for this. It is difficult for me to see how organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda will allow the likes of Mohamed El-Baradei or Amr Moussa to take over rule in Egypt in the event that they are democratically elected as leader. These proved to be destructive forces under the autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, so their activities in a democratic environment are likely to be even more disruptive and destabilising.

Despite all of the negative implications of Mubarak's rule (of which there were more than a few), he did succeed in maintaining stability in Egypt for the duration of his rule. This, in turn, contributed to greater stability in the Middle East during a period which included significant lack of stability in other parts of the region and the world. The importance and significance of Egypt in the region should not be underestimated. Lack of stability in Egypt will clearly have a negative impact across the region, and possibly across the world.

For Israel, this means greater risk which manifests itself in a number of different ways. Any change on her borders, even a change that is ultimately for the better, forces Israel to make internal changes to the way that she handles her security arrangements. After becoming accustomed to certain realities and having put relevant responses in place to handle a particular situation, any change to that situation requires changes to Israel's military activities. This creates risk and uncertainty. In the case of the changes in Egypt, the risk and uncertainty is not limited only to Israel's southern border and the Camp David peace treaty. There is every prospect that the Egyptian border to the Gaza Strip will be opened, allowing free flow of weapons into the strip which presents a huge security risk to Israel. It is not inconceivable that the Egyptian uprising may reach countries such as Jordan and Syria which creates uncertainty along Israel's eastern and northern borders. While Israel is an eager support of democracy and democratic principles (as evidenced by her own system of government), she is forced to view her own security as a higher priority. Until such time as the full impact of the Egyptian revolution is digested and understood, Israel's defence establishment will be on the highest alert.

We will all be watching carefully as Egypt treads the uncertain path towards democracy. We hope that the experiment will prove to be a success, and will contribute towards greater stability in a region that desperately requires security. In particular, the Israeli government will be watching nervously as the new Egypt reveals itself.

Does the Uprising in Egypt Open the Floodgates for Other Countries in the Middle East?

2011-02-07T08:00:00.000+02:00

President Hosni Mubarak is clinging on to power in Egypt by his fingernails. But this is clearly only a temporary situation, and an attempt for him to retain some element of dignity. His political career has been brought to an abrupt end and, with it, any aspirations that his son Gamal may have had to succeed him. The rule of this modern-day Pharaoh and his family is finally over.

Mubarak's rule over Egypt for the past thirty years has been difficult to characterise. He assumed power from the assassinated Anwar Sadat soon after Egypt was practically excommunicated from the Arab world for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Mubarak had the job of stabilising Egypt after the murder of its president, while also seeking out friends to use as a leg for its foreign policy. He has maintained cordial relations with Israel which have served to preserve the peace agreement between the countries. He has engaged with the USA and other western countries which has ensured that Egypt has had trading partners, has been at the centre of peace negotiations and has been the recipient of generous military aid packages. Internally, Mubarak has chosen to rule Egypt under the constant threat of the provisions of the state of emergency, and while ensuring that all opposition to his rule has been firmly stamped out. This has brought benefits to Israel and other western countries because he has been sure to crush the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which presents a real threat along with Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist organisations.

It is my assessment that the people of Egypt have enjoyed a fairly good existence during Mubarak's rule. As long as they were prepared to toe the line and support the regime, they could have enjoyed a fairly acceptable lifestyle and standard of living. Egypt has enjoyed economic success via its policy of engaging the west. It has been the destination for millions of western tourists with the economic benefits that tourist industry brings. It has established itself as a telecommunications crossing point with many telecommunication cable systems crossing Egypt undersea and overland in a link between Europe and the Far East. The western military aid packages have served to boost the Egyptian army and, with it, the military support for Mubarak's regime. For the average Egyptian, however, it seems that even this has not been enough. Mubarak's unwillingness to provide a political environment allowing Egyptians the freedom to determine their own political destiny has directly contributed to the current uprising. It is noticeable how the demonstrations in Egypt have been spontaneous expressions of frustration by people on the street, and not driven by political opponents. Ironically, the political opposition was extremely ill-prepared for this uprising, and has been unable to capitalise upon it. The Muslim Brotherhood have been virtually invisible throughout the past two weeks of protests, and opposition figure Mohammed El-Baradei was forced to hurry back to Egypt having been away from the country when the protests began.

It is clear that the prospects of political stability and economic prosperity that may have satisfied citizens of Middle Eastern countries in the past, are no longer enough to keep their rulers in power. Engagement of the west has proved to be a double-edged sword. In exchange for the economic benefits that the west has provided, Middle Eastern rulers should have been prepared for the export of democratic ideas and principles to their citizens. Even those countries which have not engaged the west to the same extent are finding that the new Internet age has facilitated the globalisation of democracy. It is for this reason that I suggest that the uprising in Egypt is just the start of similar uprisings in other countries and across the region.

We have already seen the overthrow of the Tunisian government. Protests have been held on the streets of Sana'a in Yemen and Amman in Jordan. Syrian President Bashar El-Assad is clearly thinking about the implications for his country as he has announced that he does not believe that this uprising will reach the streets of Damascus. I think that this is more wishful thinking than firm belief. Syria is clearly a candidate country for a similar uprising in protest against Assad's autocratic rule. The Iranian government is bracing itself for possible protests in Tehran. We may recall that Mir Hossein Mousavi fairly won the previous election, but was denied the office by Ahmadinejad and his thugs. He is now regrouping the opposition parties, and they seem ready to use the current climate to renew their own attempts to assert democracy. It is difficult to rule out possible protests in the Gulf countries and in Saudi Arabia where the monarchs' rule has been absolute. Substantial economic prosperity in these countries arising from oil revenues cannot entirely rule out the possibility of an uprising against their autocratic political regimes.

Indications are that 2011 will represent a major turning point in the Middle Eastern political landscape. Rulers were once able to isolate their citizens from developments elsewhere in the world to secure their own political situation. The Internet and other globalisation tools have changed all of that. People are now able to identify what they are missing out on, and are no longer happy to accept this fact. Those who maintain that western democracy cannot simply be transplanted into all environments, especially those in the Middle East, may well be correct. It is true that many Middle Eastern countries may not be able to successfully apply these principles to their own environments. But now, it is too late for such contentions. The wheel is turning, and its momentum seems unstoppable.