JPost’s BlogCentral recently featured an excellent article by Prof. Gil Troy. In a nutshell, Prof. Troy called on the Modern Orthodox in the Diaspora and religious Zionists within Israel to cut off financial support for the Haredi communities and institutions (e.g. yeshivot) at the centre of this lawbreaking. He also called on them to confront and “out” those instigating and applauding the violence. I can’t put it any better than this:

UNFORTUNATELY, TOO many Orthodox Jews and religious Zionists are not just bystanders to Haredi and rabbinic extremism but enablers. Too many fear the extremists. This cowardice comes from a brand of religious one-upsmanship extremists the world over have mastered. People from the center, no matter how passionate or pure, end up having their credentials questioned by the ayatollahs in religion and the commissars in politics. Too many modern Orthodox Jews and religious Zionists act insecure when amid their more radical brethren.

Violent ultra-Orthodox criminality is really only the tip of a much larger iceberg in Israel. Perhaps by addressing the violence, however we can better understand and get to grips with the bigger issues.

The Haredi Strategy: A More “Exclusive” Judaism

Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) violence (and Haredi behaviour in general) has both a pull and push effect. It has a pull effect on those who currently define themselves as Orthodox, forcing them to take more and more extreme positions to excuse, justify and explain their inaction.

In the case of those who already have questions about Judaism and Jewish identity, there’s often a push effect, especially where those unfamiliar with the Jewish landscape identify extreme ultra-Orthodoxy as speaking on behalf of Judaism as a whole. The predictable reaction is “if this is Judaism, I want nothing to do with it”.

The combined pull/push effect leads to a steady shrinking of Judaism’s sphere of influence, and in the numbers of those who choose to identify as Jews; a quiet drift away. This tendency towards a smaller, more “exclusive” (in the true sense) Judaism is presumably one of the desired outcomes of the Haredi campaign against moderation.

For this reason, we should not leave tackling the problem of Haredi violence to the Modern Orthodox and National Religious. Not just because they’re shrinking from the challenge, but because this is an issue that affects the entire Jewish people, and the credibility of Judaism as a faith. So, here are a few things the rest of us can do:

NGOs

NGOs with an interest in the rule of law, separation between church and state and just plain good government could draw up a list of organisations and bodies (formal or informal) that are seen to be responsible for the violence. The list should be published or otherwise made available to potential donors, to ensure that funds are not inadvertently channelled to them.

Donors

Insist on an audit of all organisations and initiatives receiving financial support through your federation (or other chosen channel for Tzedakah) to ensure that none of them in any way instigate, participate in or even sympathise with those responsible for the violence. There are enough worthy causes out there.

Israeli Politicians

Refuse to participate in any coalition deal that includes the non or anti-Zionist Haredi parties. OK, I can dream, can’t I? The point is that no Israeli governing coalition that includes the Haredi parties can properly address this issue. (My suspicion is that the Haredi parties utilise the unspoken threat of violence and disorder to further their political aims.)

JAFI/MASA

Ensure that no official funding flows to those associated with the violence. Even more importantly, ensure that MASA participants from abroad are steered away from these suspect institutions and programs, e.g. yeshivot. While we’re on the subject, ensure that programs that are not part of the broad Zionist consensus are included in the schedule of approved study and volunteer options.

Law Enforcement

A democratic country such as Israel must permit its citizens to demonstrate peacefully. These incidents were never intended to be any such thing, however; they were always intended to be violent confrontations. For that reason, the forces of law and order in Israel should crack down harshly on the rioters (using every available method and tactic for riot control) to bring the outbreaks under control quickly. I suspect that 2 or 3 incidents at the most should be sufficient to make everyone see the light. Anyone responsible for inciting or instigating the violence should also face the wrath of the law.

(I’m guessing that, because the thugs choose to cloak themselves in the wholly inappropriate garb of the ghetto when rioting, they are accorded some measure of protection or leniency in these incidents. This needs to be replaced by a “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” attitude by law enforcement.)

An Existential Threat

Violent ultra-Orthodox criminality is already responsible for helping to contract the reach and weight of Israel’s very sovereignty as a nation-state. If the current trends within the Haredi world continue, this sector has the potential to become another existential threat to Israel. The use of the phrase “existential threat” has blunted its impact over time. So, just to be clear, I’m saying that they are potentially a threat to the very existence of Israel. I will justify that position in another blog post.

Related posts:

The real demographic threat?
Cowardice and bullying
Exorcising the Haredi Golem

In May 2008, I posted an item regarding the Holy Land sites (Israel and surrounding areas) that had been nominated for inclusion in the New 7 Wonders of Nature list.  I was therefore appalled to read in Haaretz that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has decided to boycott efforts to have the Dead Sea included in the list, due to the participation of the Megilot Dead Sea Regional Council.

I responded with the following comment on the article.

Dead Sea or Settlements?

As usual, the “Palestinians” are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, by not being able to separate out the issue of recognising (and perhaps even saving) the Dead Sea from the issue of settlements in the “West Bank” (the widest river bank in the world).

I believe that the Jewish people has a better claim to Judea and Samaria than any other people on the planet (apart from the people now living there).  Despite that, however, I do have a problem with the manner in which the settlement enterprise operates, and the way it has hijacked and damaged Israel’s defence, domestic and foreign policies and generally hurt Israel’s image and support for her.

I would not, however, want the Dead Sea to “suffer” because of principled objections to the way in which settlement in Judea and Samaria has been carried out, and the way in which it has diverted attention from settling Israel inside the Green Line.

Surely this initiative should be considered above politics?  Even if a true natural wonder such as this was entirely outside of Israel, I would still support efforts to save or rehabilitate it.

To my mind, this demonstrates once again that the PA – far from being a “state in the making” is simply another failed state in the making.

One would also think that – in terms of international law – the PA should not even be considered a country for purposes of this exercise;  certainly it is not YET a country.  While we have to bear some of blame for that particular situation, I guess the special status accorded to things “Palestinian” goes back to chairman of the PLO being allowed to address the UN GA with a holster on his belt (long before the PA came into existence).  If I was a conspiracy theorist I would see a trend developing here!

My original post appears here:

Holy Land sites nominated for New 7 Wonders of Nature

I’ve since migrated it (and my other blog content) to this blog, here:

Holy Land sites nominated for New 7 Wonders of Nature

The Haaretz article is here, with my comment as #43. Dead Sea or Settlements?

Palestinian boycott keeps Dead Sea off ‘7 wonders’ list

coComment – Dead Sea or Settlements?

There’s a tradition that anyone who visits Israel gets to offer their opinion (usually unsolicited) regarding what’s right with it, what’s wrong with it, and what should be done by Israelis to fix it.  I see no reason why I should be the exception to that rule, although I won’t be that ambitious.

I visited Israel for about ten days in the 2nd half of March this year, attending The World Union for Progressive Judaism’s CONNECTIONS 2009 convention.  That’s already almost three months ago, so I thought I should put these notes in order before my observations lose their freshness altogether.

Ten days (and most of that time spent within the confines of conference centres) is not really enough time to claim expertise on any aspect of Israel or Israeli society.  It’s enough time to form some impressions regarding the face that Israel presents to the visitor, however; whether on business, vacation or a religious pilgrimage.  I’m therefore confining my remarks to those impressions and (surprise, surprise) how Israel’s impact on its tourists can be improved.

An English-Language TV Channel

As a conference delegate, I didn’t get to spend a whole lot of time watching TV, but I did notice the apparent lack of a local English-language TV station (still).  English is the language of international commerce, tourism/hospitality, and just about everything else (including most of the Diaspora).  I shouldn’t even have to try to motivate this; it’s just something Israel needs to have.  Just a 24/7 “loop” of news, weather, sport, traffic, financial information, etc.  All the usual stuff a business traveller might expect, presented from a local perspective (preferably by gorgeous Israeli women).  Just do it!  (This is entirely separate from the externally orientated “Al Israela” I’ve discussed elsewhere.)

English In The Hospitality Industry

Yes, we in the Diaspora need to do a better job of learning Hebrew too, but more of those involved in the Israeli hospitality and tourism industries (and even just service industries and public servants in general) need to be at least competent in English.  Trust me, this will be one of the best investments Israeli tourism (and the individuals themselves) can make.  English is the “lingua franca” of the connected modern world, and Israel cannot afford to be left behind.

More Information For Tourists

Have more tourist information stands at strategic locations.  Make sure that hotels, hostels and B&B’s keep a stock of tourist information brochures and pamphlets.  Due to flight availability, we ended up with two days free time in Jaffa.  We spent most of the time walking around, without ever encountering a visitor friendly information stall, sign or brochure (apart from a map we obtained from the hostel).

Business Hours

Shops appear to keep very strange hours, and only the largest post their business hours on the storefront.  There’s plenty of room here to make it easier for visitors, by sticking with more conventional business hours and posting these hours in the storefront window.

More Bureaux De Change

We found it easy to change US Dollars at the “Change” cubicles in Jerusalem’s Old City, but something of a mission everywhere else.  Banks appear to have abdicated their role as BDC’s (apart from being very expensive).  The Israel Post Office branches turned out to be the best bet for exchanging currency, but I’m not sure that many visitors would know this.  The bottom line is that more BDC’s are needed, particularly in areas frequented by visitors from abroad.

Pre-Paid Mobile Phone Cards

At home in South Africa, I am used to being able to buy a pre-paid mobile (cellular) phone SIM card and the airtime to go with it practically anywhere (including ATM’s and just about any retail outlet).  While in Israel, however, I only came across one shop selling pre-paid SIM cards and airtime, and it was closed at the time.  I’m guessing that, like me, many visitors would like to have a local number for the duration of their visit, without having to take out a contract.

Buses

The bus service was still as good as I remembered it from the early 80s, albeit less used by the man in the street.  Having a standard fare irrespective of how many stops you travel is a great idea for both drivers and passengers.  Just one suggestion:  place more bus route maps at bus stops, e.g. at all bus shelters.  We found these to be quite useful where available.

Sherut Taxis

These shared taxis were once second only to Dan and Egged buses in importance as far as public transport is concerned.  They now appear to have been displaced by normal metered taxis.  I would suggest that there is still a role for Sherut taxis (particularly for routes such as those to and from the airport), sitting between buses on the one hand and private taxis on the other.

Israel’s Water Crisis

In a previous blog post, I suggested that the hospitality and tourism industries in Israel could play a far greater role in making visitors aware of Israel’s water crisis, and helping to mitigate the impact of the traveller on Israel’s scarce water resources.

Urban Trees

Given the proud achievements of the KKL-JNF over the last century, I was surprised to find urban (sidewalk) trees and local parks to be a scarcer resource in Tel-Aviv than I would have expected.  Once again, my observation is from the traveller’s perspective, but putting more emphasis on greening Israel’s urban centres would benefit both residents and visitors, and even the planet itself in a small way.

Hijacking Of Sites Of Historical Interest

There’s a growing trend for sites of archaeological, historical or religious interest to be hijacked by the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) minority in Israel.  These sites are then transformed from sites open to all into what are effectively ultra-Orthodox synagogues, with partitions and extreme dress codes being imposed on all visitors.  This trend needs to be resisted.  Israel needs to take back these sites and hold them in trust as the common heritage of all, not just the exclusive domain of an extreme minority.

An Urban Facelift

Israel’s classic 3-4 story square cement apartment blocks could also do with a facelift.  Addressing just these three aspects could completely transform much of Israel’s older urban landscape, making then more visually appealing for both residents and visitors:

• Paint or coat the exteriors in either white or off-white
• Conceal all external surface wiring and pipes by means of conduit or some form of trellis
• Find ways to conceal or otherwise make external air-conditioning units less of an eyesore

Urban Blight

The urban blight in the very heart of the sidewalk café heart of Tel Aviv is shocking and incongruous, and completely out of key with Israel’s current economic status and the image she should be trying to convey.  There needs to be an urban renewal partnership between central and local government, private enterprise and conservation bodies to inventory these buildings and take a restore/renovate/demolish decision for each building.  (Such an initiative is obviously way beyond the mandate of the Israeli tourism authorities, but they should certainly be taking an active interest in it.)

The Famous Sabra Abrasiveness

Finally, Israelis should be complimented on the huge gains in all round civility that has taken place in the last few decades.  There’s still a lot of room for improvement, however.  While the Israeli Sabra myth still held sway, that famous Israeli abrasiveness and directness was an acceptable part of the whole package.  Given the erosion of Israel’s image over the last four decades, however, perhaps it’s time to reintroduce a lot more good old fashioned courtesy.

We’ve come to understand that the way in which Israel’s military conflicts are portrayed in the media constitute another front in the war against her;  one which she is losing ground on.

Over the past few decades, each time that Israel is obliged to defend itself, its citizens or its interests (or trample over the Middle East in hob-nailed boots, depending on who you listen to) the call has gone out for a global TV news/current affairs channel that reflects the Israeli case and perspective on events.

The need for such a channel became blindingly obvious during the 1st Hezbollah War (2006) and again during the 1st Hamas War (2009), but on each occasion the awareness appears to have faded before any concrete steps were taken.

I was therefore please to come across this reference (on Twitter) to a proposed “Israel World TV” service. According to the Twitter bio:

Israel World News will be a global cable news network based out of Jerusalem. Click on the URL to view the demo [File Size: 95.34 MB]. Investment info. available.

Additional information regarding Israel World News Television is contained in this Press Release.

So, will this be Israel’s answer – not just to Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera and the like – but also to BBC World News, CNN, FOXNews and Sky News (my personal favourite), all of whose coverage of Israel tends to be tilted against her to a greater or lesser extent? Let’s hope so. If not, then perhaps other initiatives to establish what I’ve come to refer to as the “Al Israela” cable/satellite TV channel will eventually bear fruit.

As always, I have a few thoughts regarding the outlines of such a service:

• It should be available worldwide
• It should be free-to-air
• It should broadcast 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• It should eventually broadcast in all the major world languages (starting with English and other European languages)
• It should be available as a conventional TV broadcast in Israel and the Middle East, and as a cable/satellite TV channel worldwide (without subscription)
• Anyone with a suitable satellite dish should be able to tune in to the station, but strenuous efforts should also be made to have it included in as many cable/satellite TV bouquets as possible worldwide

Some observers have pointed out that a wealth of video material with a Hasbara orientation is available from various Israeli and Jewish video websites. This is not the answer, or at least not yet. This material is only available to those with a computer (or with easy access to one) and a broadband Internet connection. A TV set (with or without a satellite dish) on the other hand, is almost ubiquitous, at least in the Western world. In addition, these services rely on the user “pulling” the material to him/her; the desirable model is for the material to be “pushed” out on the airwaves. (This is not to say that these clips and inserts (in some cases fully-fledged programs) should not be made available for re-broadcast on Al Israela; that would be the best of both worlds.)

In the meantime, the answer to my question “Will @IsraelWorldNews finally give us an “Al Israela” cable/satellite TV channel?” was “Soon!”. Let’s hope so!

In Part 1 of this blog post I took issue with some of the viewpoints expressed by Hirsh Goodman in his talk at the Beyachad JCC on 30 April 2009.

In this part, I will look at his views on the key issue of Iran, and also take a brief look at areas where I had no argument with Hirsh’s views.

Iran. He suggested that Israel’s risk in the event of a nuclear war was much lower than that of Iran, inter alia because Israel presents a smaller target. That may well be, but the phrase “all it takes is one” springs to mind. Exactly because of its size and concentrated population centres, Israel would probably not survive even a single nuclear strike, while Iran could probably absorb dozens and still function (after a fashion).

Sanctions. Hirsh believes that targeted sanctions by the West are the best way to bring Iran to its senses. I’m sorry, but what sanctions? By all accounts, the West’s (and especially Europe’s) trade and other dealings with Iran are growing by leaps and bounds. So long as Iran can keep the West talking, sanctions will remain little but a vague threat on the horizon.

Whose problem? Hirsh also suggested that we should see Iran as the West’s problem, rather than Israel’s. For once we should not place ourselves in the path of the juggernaut. I’d like to be able to agree with this, but sadly I can’t. Hitler’s Germany should have been the world’s problem rather than a Jewish problem. By the time the world finally tackled the problem, however, it was too late for the Jews of Europe. Those who said that the best way to save Europe’s Jews was to defeat Hitler were deceived and in turn deceived . In the same way that Hitler’s Germany was and remained a Jewish problem long after it became a world problem, Iran is and will remain an Israeli problem long after it becomes the West’s problem.  Iran is not threatening the West with genocide.

Ahmadenijad. Hirsh stated that if Ahmadenijad didn’t exist, Israel would have to invent him; in the sense that he highlights the irrationality, even insanity, of the Iranian regime. Perhaps so. What is of grave concern, however, is the welcome Ahmadenijad receives in the corridors of power. Instead of being given the treatment appropriate to a homicidal, axe-wielding maniac, he is instead treated like a slightly eccentric relative who occasionally makes rude gestures at the neighbours (the ones nobody really likes anyway).

Goodman spoke for close to two hours, and there was much in his sweeping survey of Israel’s situation and prospects that was new to me, or that I was comfortable with. As often happens, however, what stuck in my mind were the issues I disagreed with, rather than those that did not snag. Here’s a few of the things I did agree with him on:

Kibbutzim.  The Kibbutzim have (ironically) become the biggest property developers in Israel. My take, however, is that if they’re not using the land for its original purpose, it should be handed back to the ILA or the JNF.

Railways. The expansion of Israel’s railway network has been phenomenal. Kol Hakavod! Israel does not have space for both people and the voracious appetite for land and resources that private cars have. Let’s get the emphasis back on public transport.

Democrats. Democratic presidencies tend to be better for Israel in the long run. Agreed, but BHO is not your father’s Democrat.

Geography. In one of the ironies of history, the geography of Israel and (Arab) Palestine have been reversed; territorially and historically each is where the other should be, e.g. through most of its early history Israel’s heartland was in Judea and Samaria. Agreed.

The Two-State Solution. This is dead in the water. Agreed. The Arabs have been rejecting their half of the two-state solution (then called “Partition”) since at least the late 30s. What’s not clear, however, is what workable formula can take the place of the Two-State Solution.

Israel’s Case. Israel needs to be present, to show up and state her case wherever possible, even if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Agreed.

1st Hamas War. It was interesting to hear Hirsh say that not embedding journalists with the IDF was a major blunder during the Gaza operations, as was opening the floodgates to journalists afterwards, without a comprehensive briefing. Both of these approaches were of great concern to me while I was busy with my Twitter “coverage” of the operation.

I understand that Hirsh Goodman has cut down considerably on his speaking engagements, so if you do have the opportunity to hear him speak, it will be time well spent.

Here is Hirsh’s biography as per the invitation to the event:

Hirsh Goodman is the author of "Let Me Create a Paradise, A Journey of conscience from Johannesburg to Jerusalem" published to critical acclaim by PublicAffairs and HarperCollins. Sir Martin Gilbert wrote of the book: "I was much moved by many episodes in it. It really is a superb book… "And that "it is history with a human face."

Hirsh is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University where he directs the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Program on Information Strategy, designed to make policy makers factor media into their planning process rather than correcting bad policies after the fact.

In the mid-1980s, after covering all of Israel’s major wars, the peace process with Egypt and other events, he became the Strategic Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy where, among others, he wrote together with W. Seth Carus “The Future Conflict and the Arab Israeli Conflict”.

In 1990 Goodman founded The Jerusalem Report, the highly regarded international bi-weekly magazine on international Jewish affairs published out of Jerusalem. In 1998 he was named Vice-Chairman of the Jerusalem Post, a position he held for three years.

Some weeks ago, I attended a briefing by Media Strategist Hirsh Goodman at the Beyachad JCC in Johannesburg. Hirsh (a former South African) was on a visit here to take part in the local Jewish community’s Yom Ha’atzmaut celebrations.

I didn’t take notes during his broad-ranging talk, so it was only when I jotted down a few points later that I realised how many issues I thoroughly disagreed with him on. While Hirsh is far better qualified (in terms of both his academic record and life course) than I to take positions on many of these issues, nevertheless I’m backing my own judgement. Of course, he may well have taken some of these positions just to be contrarian. Let’s look at a few.

(I realise I may be putting words in his mouth, and I’m open to correction on any of the points. I’m also not quoting chapter and verse to support either stance.)

Turkey. Hirsh still sees Turkey as an ally of Israel and the West (and saw the Davos incident as trivial). This may well be the case, but it’s less true than it was in the past, and is becoming less and less true, with the Islamist agenda of Erdoğan and the AKP biting deeper. Israel should not be making strategic plans that assume Turkey’s friendship. Turkey will not be the first or the last secular Muslim majority country to abandon secularism in favour of Islamism.

Water. Hirsh underplayed Israel’s water crisis, suggesting that it was a bureaucratic blip and that Israeli ingenuity and the Israeli “Boer maak ‘n plan” (a Boer makes a plan) attitude would be sufficient to overcome the problem. Other commentators, however, suggest that Israel is poorly positioned to drive a national strategy to tackle the water crisis because of the paralysis induced by Israel’s electoral and political system.

Missiles. Hirsh’s view is that Israel is better able to cope with more advanced missiles than with the less advanced, e.g. the Qassam, with the higher level of technology playing into Israel’s hands. Israel may still have something of a technological edge, but as we saw with various incidents in the 1st Hezbollah War (e.g. interception of Israeli communications), following orders can trump cockiness. A further example: despite Israel being a leader in the field of computer security, whose Internet Websites end up getting compromised during times of conflict? An army of script-kiddies can do considerable damage to a technologically superior opponent.

Settlements. His belief is that pretty much nothing can be done about the Settlements in Judea and Samaria. Once again, I disagree. While there is a hard core of Settlers who will not be dislodged without severely harming the fabric of Israeli society, I believe the majority can be persuaded to leave once permanent consensus boundaries have been delineated, and once services are withdrawn from those Settlements that do not form part of the blocs, and that are not destined to remain part of Israel.

IDF. Hirsh was relaxed about the increasing proportion of National Religious (dati’im) in IDF combat units and the officer corps, referring to them as the salt of the earth (which they undoubtedly are). Shouldn’t we be a little concerned, however, about which chain of command will receive their loyalty in a time of internal conflict; the official IDF chain of command, or chain of command that reaches up to the Almighty through their Rabbis? In an earlier phase of our history, Ben-Gurion disbanded the Palmach for exactly the same kind of reason (and despite their elite status).

Israel’s Arabs. Hirsh is justifiably proud of the fact that Israel’s Arab citizens admit they would prefer to remain a part of Israel. The writing is on the wall, however. This attitude is being eroded by Palestinian nationalism and militant Islamism, and the smell of blood is in the water. They may want to remain in Israel, but the Israel many now envisage is not one that most of us would be comfortable with; it is one stripped of its Jewish and Zionist fundamentals.

Gaza. Hirsh made light of the Jewish narrative in Gaza. While Gaza may be on the periphery rather than the core of the Jewish heartland – and while we may have all but relinquished our claim to her – we should not attempt to rewrite history and erase the Jewish narrative there. There are others all too willing to take this up and extend it to other parts of Israel.

Golan. I didn’t agree with his assessment of the importance of the Syrian track. I believe that only regime change in Syria will pry her loose from the Iranian orbit. Even in the age of remote control warfare, defensible borders and strategic depth still have meaning. I’m also a believer in Peace for Peace rather than Land for Peace when it comes to the Golan Heights and anywhere else.

In Part 2, I will look at the key issue of Iran, and also take a very brief look at the aspects of Hirsh Goodman’s presentation that I was in agreement with.

According to a handful of (somewhat conflicting) news reports, Jordan appears to have decided to go its own way, by proceeding with the controversial Red-Dead Canal Project without involvement from Israel (or the PA).

The unilateral launch of the Red-Dead Canal Project took place as part of the regional meeting of the World Economic Forum, and was announced along with a slew of mega-projects to be undertaken by Jordan.

How does this affect Israel, and what should her reaction be? I believe she should react by wishing Jordan all the best in her endeavours, while at the same time initiating a project to address her own water needs and rehabilitate the Jordan River Valley. The cornerstone of this project should be a Med-Kinneret Canal, taking desalinated water from the Mediterranean Sea +/-40km east and 200m down to the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret).

Why abandon the Red-Dead Canal Project without a fight? I have detailed my reservations regarding the project elsewhere. These include:

• The size of the project (distances, budget and timescales) weighs the odds heavily against success
• Grave doubts as to whether the introduction of water from the Red Sea (Gulf of Eilat) will indeed save the Dead Sea, or simply hasten its demise
• Concerns regarding all the environmental impacts of the project have yet to be addressed
• The need for close international cooperation between enemies and former enemies (Israel, Jordan and the PA) brings further complications to an already risky enterprise
• Infrastructure will be situated almost entirely in Jordan’s sovereign territory, presenting a risk in the event of continued or renewed conflict in the region

What does the Med-Kinneret Canal proposal offer that the Red-Dead Canal Project does not, at least insofar as Israel is concerned? While these have been detailed elsewhere, some of the key advantages include:

• It would be located entirely within Israel’s sovereign territory
• The scale, complexity and cost would be limited, as it would follow the shortest possible route between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River Valley, due east from Acco/Haifa to the Sea of Galilee
• It would not rely on close international cooperation between Israel and its current or former adversaries
• It would be the cornerstone of a comprehensive project to address Israel’s water crisis holistically
• It would utilise Israel’s existing water distribution infrastructure, e.g. the Mekorot network
• It would help to rehabilitate the entire length of the Jordan River Valley, including both the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea
• Environmental impact would be reduced by introducing only partially or completely desalinated seawater into the upper reaches of the Jordan River system

I am, quite frankly, envious that it’s Jordan initiating this whole raft of mega-projects rather than Israel. Many of them are of a type and scale that would have traditionally been associated with Israel rather than its neighbours. Let’s hope that this will serve as something of a wake-up call to Israel that she is steadily losing her peacetime qualitative edge when compared to the region.

Hat tip to Joel Katz (Editor, Religion and State in Israel blog) for bringing the breaking news story to my attention.

Links/Reading/Resources:

1. Business in Brief – Haaretz – Israel News
2. Two studies to examine environmental impact
3. Jordan plans $10b seawater desalination plant – BostonHerald.com
4. Dead Sea Development Zone launched
5. Two sovereign loan agreements to be signed tomorrow
6. Uranium provides Jordan with spark for much-needed economic bonanza – Times Online

Related posts:

1. The Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea: Charismatic Megafauna in Israel’s Water Crisis
2. The Valley of Peace: Why a Med-Kinneret Aqueduct makes more sense
3. Building the wrong canal: An alternative to the Red-Dead Canal
4. Red-Dead Canal or Med-Dead Canal?

Sky News recently featured an insert regarding the state of the Sea of Galilee (AKA Kinneret or Tiberias). (I tend to stick with Sky;  nothing to do with Sky having the hottest women presenters of all the networks.)

First the Dead Sea and now the Sea of Galilee have become Israel’s “charismatic megafauna” when it comes to the water crisis it faces. Israel is extremely fortunate to have not one, but two such unique “species”. We shouldn’t make the mistake, however, of believing that these two alluring bodies of water can be saved in isolation, any more than the Giant Panda can be saved without sparing its habitat.

Elsewhere I’ve outlined a comprehensive layman’s agenda for addressing Israel’s water crisis, but I have no problem restating it here. For this piece, I’ve broken it down into Maintenance and Development activities:

Maintenance

Who could have predicted a sustained drought? The Israeli Water Authority needs to urgently update its projections and plans to factor in the impact of Climate Change (Global Scorching) and prolonged drought.

"Such a drought of five successive years – that’s something we never met," Dr Doron Merkel told Sky News Online.

Perhaps, but surely after just 2 or 3 years something of a rethink would have been in order?

The demand side. Make strenuous efforts to reduce consumption. The current advertising campaign is a good start, but the strategy to reduce consumption needs to be both comprehensive and sustained and include elements such as pricing.

Reduce waste. This is somewhat different to the efforts to reduce consumption, and mainly involves getting all levels of society (national, municipal, household, etc.) to maintain and repair infrastructure, in order to limit water wastage to the absolute minimum. Mekorot’s pipelines must be in good order, and leaking tap washers must be replaced.

(On a recent trip to Israel (I love saying that; I don’t get out much) to attend CONNECTIONS 2009, the hostels we stayed at showed little evidence of the water crisis. Dual-flush toilets were there, but no water-saving shower heads or other consumer devices or appeals to use water sparingly. Even bath/basin plugs were a scarce commodity! The tourism/hospitality industry could play a key role in educating both visitors and the public about the need to save water.)

Reduce pollution. Both more and less significant water sources (from small streams through to the aquifers on which Israel rests (in many senses)) have been or are being lost to pollution. Drastic steps need to be taken to halt this trend and restore these sources to the supply side of this unequal equation.

Realign agriculture. The water crisis should not require that Israeli agriculture – Zionism’s first born – be treated as a sacrificial lamb. All stakeholders should commit themselves to transforming Israeli agriculture over the next 3 to 5 years at the latest, to wean it off its dangerous addiction to scarce, subsidised water. Much has already been done in this regard, but much still remains to be done.

Development

Climate Change. While Israel’s “contribution” to Climate Change is insignificant, there’s no reason why she should not strive to become a net “negative contributor” when it comes to greenhouse gasses. Israel should also continue and expand activities that mitigate the effects of Climate Change, e.g. large-scale afforestation.

Eat your own dog food. Israel is acknowledged as being in the forefront of water technology. Instead of simply exporting this knowhow, Israel itself needs to become the field trial or proving ground for its own R and D; the pilot site for technologies than can help her use less water, more efficiently and effectively. Israel needs to eat its own dog food as far as water-tech is concerned; a win-win situation for both vendors and society.

Desalination. Israel’s population and mainly Western lifestyle mean that water consumption is far in excess of the carrying capacity of the country. Even were all the items above to be checked, there would still be a deficit. The only way to address this deficit is through desalination of seawater. Everyone in Israel knows this, but activity is lagging far behind awareness. Government needs to become the facilitator, and not an obstacle when it comes to large scale efforts to desalinate seawater.

The Med-Kinneret Aqueduct. The much vaunted Red-Dead Canal may or may not save the Dead Sea from total extinction. It won’t do much for Israel’s water situation, however. Only my Med-Kinneret Aqueduct proposal has the potential to rehabilitate the entire Jordan (from the Kinneret to the Dead Sea), as well as topping up Israel’s overall water supply “pool”. This is the final piece in the puzzle and needs to be given a serious hearing before Israel commits to a different (potentially disastrous) canal project.

Links/Reading/Resources:

1. Sea Of Galilee In Israel Is Facing Disaster Says Friends Of The Earth Prompting Government Campaign | World News | Sky News
2. CONNECTIONS 2009
3. Sea of Galilee – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Charismatic megafauna – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5. Nostalgia Sunday – Mekorot’s water portfolio | ISRAELITY

Related posts:

1. The Valley of Peace: Why a Med-Kinneret Aqueduct makes more sense
2. Building the wrong canal: An alternative to the Red-Dead Canal
3. Red-Dead Canal or Med-Dead Canal?
4. Winemaking as an appropriate agricultural export for Israel
5. Water: What price should Israeli agriculture pay?
6. Boutique wineries: a model for the survival of Israeli agriculture?

I get very nervous when I hear of plans to modify Israel’s Law of Return, such as the latest initiative on the part of Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, involving a special committee headed by Professor Yaakov Ne’eman.

In its present form, the Law of Return includes – let’s call them – the Hitler provisions, allowing those with even just one Jewish grandparent to seek sanctuary in the State of Israel and receive citizenship with all its benefits and responsibilities. This is Israel’s ex post facto response to the Holocaust, during which the most observant, Halachically correct Jew shared the same horrific fate as the most bewildered, assimilated person with the misfortune to have had a Jewish grandparent.

This noble piece of legislation – one of Israel’s defining laws – sets Israel apart from every other state in the world, making it the one place on the entire planet that will automatically provide a home to anyone persecuted for being a Jew (or being considered one).

So why am I nervous? And why is this law – which some would see as the very essence of Zionism – under scrutiny, if not attack?

I’m nervous because of the way in which Israeli officialdom has bent to the will of the most backward, anti-Zionist elements within Israeli society – the ultra-Orthodox or Haredi sector – and I therefore find it difficult to believe that it will be any different in this case.

And why is the law under attack? Apparently because it “has been abused, allowing ‘people that have nothing to do with Judaism’ to receive automatic Israeli citizenship.” And just for good measure, because “1 million illegal immigrants [are] living in Israel”.

Scary stuff, but is that really the case? And if so, is the Law of Return to blame?

I believe that the problem is not with ‘people that have nothing to do with Judaism’, but the fact that Haredi domination of vital roles in the whole absorption process. This has meant that far too many were denied a soft landing, a clear and unobstructed path back to Judaism and to integration into Jewish and Israeli society. They were given no way of becoming Jewish that did not involve adopting the complete Haredi lifestyle, a path that most of the Jews by birth alive today reject!

It is very ironic indeed that for decades we praised Soviet Jewry for maintaining a tenuous connection to their Judaism, Jewishness and Zionism, despite all the odds against it. Now that they’ve finally come home, they are scorned for not being Jewish enough, for not being Halachically pure enough, for not being observant enough, or for having non-Jewish ancestors, partners or children. In the name of all that is holy, just what did you expect?!

As for the laughable figure of “1 million illegal immigrants” supposedly living in Israel, dragging this issue in here simply muddies the water, as issues around foreign workers and Palestinian family reunification clearly have nothing to do with the Law of Return.

No doubt the law has been abused by those who are not genuine in a desire to make Aliya as part of a return to their roots. The blame for that, however, must be laid at the door of those responsible for the whole Aliya process, not the law itself.

Judging by the tone of the report in Ynetnews, however, my impression is that this review will be used to disenfranchise the “sociological Jews”, such as those who made up almost a third of the total Russian Aliya of the 90s and later.

If they insist on tampering with it, what could or should be amended? I think that all except the ill-intentioned would agree that the safe refuge provided by the “Hitler provisions” must remain. To undo those provisions would literally set us on the path of unwinding the entire Zionist enterprise. Having been granted that potentially life-saving residence however, few would object to the idea of so-called sociological Jews following a normal rather than a fast-track path to citizenship. That normal track might include a 5-year residence requirement, a civics exam, fluency in Hebrew and an oath of loyalty.

Finally, the provisions and impact of the Law of Return cannot be separated from what has been termed the “Conversion Crisis” in Israel. Changes to the law must go hand in hand with changes that will give all the major streams of Judaism absolute parity when it comes to recognition of conversions; performed both within and outside of Israel. The time for Israelis (or potential Israelis) to enjoy freedom of religion (along with the rest of the civilised world) is long overdue.

Links/Reading/Resources:

• Law of Return – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Law of Return to be revised – Israel Jewish Scene, Ynetnews
• Committee to look at revising Law of Return | JTA – Jewish & Israel News

Related posts:

• Altneuland: A bungled Aliya
• Altneuland: The Jewish Agency and aliya in the 21st century
• Altneuland: The easiest demographic problem we’ve ever had
• Altneuland: North American Aliya: When is enough enough?

—

If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to Altneuland by e-mail, and have new posts sent directly to your Inbox. You can also subscribe to the Altneuland RSS feed.

now loading…
the best visual content,
for the best publishers

Israeli Knesset…

Photo by David Silverman/Getty…

Read more

 
 
 

Israeli Knesset Opening Session

JERUSALEM, ISRAEL – OCTOBER 27: Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak (R) turns his back on Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (front) and Minister of Pensioner Affairs Rafi Eitan during the opening of the winter session of…

Photo by David Silverman/Getty…

Publish this image on your blog

close

Email image to a friend

close

I’ve tended to not have much to say about the 2009 Israeli elections, mainly because I believe it’s the prerogative of the Israeli citizen and voter to do most of the talking in that regard. I would, however, just like to share a few high-level impressions from where I sit.

Firstly, am I alone in finding that the current Israeli electoral system tends to exaggerate differences, while not reflecting the consensus (where it exists)?

An example of this tendency to overstate differences while masking consensus might be the overriding issue of security. This overarching concern probably led to Likud receiving a plurality (only just) – but nowhere near a majority – of the votes.

That perhaps highlights another issue: Without exception, there is a disconnect between the stated policies of the parties and how they can be expected to behave in a coalition government. The job of the Israeli voter is thus twice as difficult as that of a voter in any other country. It’s not just about the party’s policies, but also about which of them would probably be abandoned or compromised in order to participate in a governing coalition.

Israel’s security situation continues to skew national politics. The most disappointing illustration of this was the failure of any of the Green lists to perform, as well as the fact that a successor to Shinui (or a citizens’ interests party) has still not emerged. I look forward to a time when all parties contesting the Israeli elections can be counted on to let security become a “given”, thereby allowing the debate to centre around the myriad other issues confronting the Jewish State. In the meantime, social justice and related issues will have to continue to be addressed outside of national party politics.

Elsewhere in the world, the greatest threats to the survival or health of societies are Climate Change (“Global Scorching”) and the current global economic crisis. In Israel, however, an even greater threat to survival comes from an irrational Iran equipped with nuclear and other WMDs. From this point of view, it is therefore appropriate that Netanyahu – who identified this particular threat at a very early stage – should lead the governing coalition. I’m saying that as someone who is not a fan of any Israeli leader alive today.)

Looking ahead, it’s becoming apparent that Israel will find it increasingly difficult to confront its greatest challenges until it changes its electoral system and manages to exclude the lunatic fringe (I’m referring specifically to the religious/national far-right) from influencing or participating in the business of government. (And Israel is simply far too vulnerable to rely on divine intervention.)

Which electoral model is right for the unique Israeli situation? I would imagine either direct presidential elections (along the lines of the US), where the president in turn appoints his cabinet, or a parliamentary system where a majority (or all) of the representatives are elected by and responsible to specific geographical constituencies. Either system (or something uniquely Israeli that addresses current shortcomings) should result in a much needed rationalisation or streamlining of Israeli party politics. There must also be as little overlap as possible between the executive and legislative branches of government, with those appointed as ministers being required to resign as MKs and vice versa. (Nobody can do justice to both roles simultaneously.)

At this stage, I’m still hopeful that party leaders will set aside their egos, and that the next Israeli government will be a broad-based “Middle Israel” coalition that intentionally excludes only the anti-Zionist Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties. There will be a coalition. It’s up to Kadima and Labour to decide whether it will be a centre-left coalition that includes them, or a centre-right coalition that excludes them and makes them irrelevant for the next critical half decade.

BTW, I enjoyed the cool graphics on a number of websites, allowing one to slice and dice the election results in a variety of ways. Those appearing on Haaretz and Israel Insider were most useful to me.

—

If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to Altneuland by e-mail, and have new posts sent directly to your Inbox. You can also subscribe to the Altneuland RSS feed.

I started making notes for this post about two weeks ago, and now wish I’d completed it sooner; this article on the Ynetnews website has pretty much taken the wind out of my sails.

The idea of the post was to explore the options – short of a full scale military operation – available to Israel in order to damage, delay or derail Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, and the delivery mechanism to go along. This is what I’d come up with:

1. Continue to gather detailed intelligence regarding the programs, facilities and people involved in developing Iran’s WMD capabilities. Where appropriate, share output of that intelligence with Israel’s allies.
2. Continue to gather detailed intelligence regarding the companies, individuals and research bodies supplying material or skills that assist Iran’s quest. Where appropriate, share that information with the governments concerned, and pro-Israel organisations in the affected countries. Name and shame in the media where appropriate.
3. Identify shipments of nuclear-related components to Iran, and pressure affected companies and governments to prevent shipping. If necessary, in the case of critical components, take covert or direct action to ensure that they do not reach their destinations.
4. Create a detailed database of scientists, technicians and administrators involved in Iran’s WMD programs, and ensure that these individuals become aware that their roles have been noted.
5. Use sabotage and other deniable covert action against critical components, facilities and targets, both within and outside of Iran.

In all cases, extreme precautions should be taken to ensure that Israel’s human intelligence and other assets in Iran and elsewhere are not compromised.

In an ideal world, the UN and the Western World would have already stepped in to neutralise this existential threat to a vulnerable member of the family of nations. In the absence of such action – and with Israel apparently being discouraged or prevented from initiating military operations – Israel should investigate all other means to prevent Iran from joining the Holocaust club. A combination of all the following options may succeed in at least slowing Iran down until the West can be brought to its senses: detailed intelligence, sharing of intelligence, pressure on affected governments, use of the media and NGOs, naming and shaming of organisations and individuals, and covert or direct action

Sadly, once again, it appears that Israel will need to retain responsibility for its own fate.

—

If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to Altneuland by e-mail, and have new posts sent directly to your Inbox. You can also subscribe to the Altneuland RSS feed.

In a post back in March 2008, I covered the introduction of the innovative Yoma – KKL-JNF Calendar of Concepts and Events, a really nice way to spice up and “Judaise” your Microsoft Outlook or compatible calendar.

The calendar was introduced in September 2006, for the year 5767 (2006-2007), and was available in Hebrew and English.

Nothing similar was produced for 5768 (2007/8), and its absence was sorely missed, at least by this writer.

I’m therefore very pleased to note that the Yoma – KKL-JNF Calendar of Concepts and Events has been made available for 5769 (2008-2009). I would like to think this is at least partly due to the pressure that I and my readers put on Ahuva Bar-Lev at the KKL-JNF Liaison, Information and Publications Department in Jerusalem. (In fact, it’s not too early to drop Ahuva a note at AhuvaB@kkl.org.il and politely request that publication of the calendar be made an annual occurrence. Please mention the Altneuland blog.)

The Calendar of Concepts and Events in the Jewish Holidays, Zionism, Israel and the Environment 5769 (2008-2009) was funded by the KKL-JNF Youth and Education Division. The 5769 version has actually gone one better than the original 5767 calendar, in that it’s now available in English, French, Hebrew and Spanish.

To repeat what I said in my previous post:

For those of us who spend much of their working day interacting with Outlook, this is a great way of adding a little “Ivritkeit” to your desktop. It should work with any version of Microsoft Outlook, as well as other e-mail/calendar/PIM applications able to handle the iCalendar format.

The whole download and install procedure has now been further automated, and step by step instructions are provided during the process (I wasn’t able to reproduce the instructions here, as they’re part of a Flash animation). I did encounter a problem and wasn’t able to complete the install when using Firefox 3.x. It did work without a hitch when using Internet Explorer (IE) 7.x. The install uses JavaScript, so perhaps there’s a JavaScript add-on or setting that wasn’t present in my browser. I have reported the issue to KKL-JNF.

You can download the KKL-JNF Calendar from this location:

Yoma – KKL-JNF Calendar of Concepts and Events

Alternatively, you can bypass the introduction and go direct to the download here:

iCalendar

Related posts:

Altneuland: Judaising your Desktop (5): KKL-JNF Calendar of Concepts and Events

If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to Altneuland by e-mail, and have new posts sent directly to your Inbox. You can also subscribe to the Altneuland RSS feed.

Like most Israeli and Jewish news sources, Israel National News carried the story of the discovery of a huge deposit of natural gas under the Mediterranean Sea near Haifa.

The report said in part that “Eighty-seven billion cubic meters, or nearly 3.1 trillion cubic feet, of high-quality gas are estimated to be in three deposits in the Tamar Drilling site, which is named for Delek owner Yitzchak Teshuva’s granddaughter.”

There is no consensus yet as to whether the Tamar Prospect will give Israel energy independence, a more diversified energy source, the prospect of greener energy or perhaps even the ability to become an energy exporter. There is little doubt, however, that having control over this natural resource will be to Israel’s benefit.

According to Wikipedia, “An autarky is an economy that is self-sufficient and does not take part in international trade, or severely limits trade with the outside world.” By this definition, autarky is a somewhat unrealistic policy, and few countries today would admit to embracing it. To do so would put one in the company of states such as North Korea. Enough said…

Even in the age of globalisation, however, the concept of “resource independence” or “resource security” (e.g. energy independence or food security) has steadily gained acceptance. Presumably this is a recognition that there will always be times when a country is unwilling or unable to trade for the resources its economy (or its war machine) requires. Or perhaps it’s just plain prudent to have some degree of self-sufficiency when it comes to vital resources. For a country with hostile neighbours (such as Israel), what might be seen by some as something of a luxury, takes on the nature of a necessity.

If resource independence or resource security is recognised as a good thing, then perhaps it’s time for Israel to define national objectives in this regard. The limitations are well known; mainly to do with Israel’s size and the concomitant scarcity of natural resources. Despite this however, it should be possible to define realistic goals for self-sufficiency, at least with regard to certain critical resources. I’d like to suggest the following as a starting point:

Armaments. Certain specialised armaments can only be obtained from their manufacturers, while Israel currently does not have the capability to design and manufacture weapons such as strike aircraft or submarines. Apart from these exceptions, however, it should be possible to achieve a much greater degree of self-sufficiency, to ensure that military operations are not held hostage to delayed arms shipments from allies or suppliers.

(Israel’s interests are hardly ever 100% aligned with those of even its closest allies, and at times it needs the ability to pursue an independent course of action (or prosecute a war to its logical conclusion). At those times, it needs to have a greater degree of self-sufficiency with regard to core armaments. I would like to hear compelling reasons why Israel can’t achieve this.)

Energy. Goals and objectives should be defined for energy conservation, diversification of energy sources, energy security and alternative (“green”) energy sources. This quote from President Obama, although it refers to the US, could apply equally to Israel:

Obama put that peril he mentioned in stark terms. He said dependence on foreign oil "bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American [Israeli] people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation and sets back our ability to compete."

Food. The devastating drought in Israel has highlighted the error of concentrating on crops that are “water-extensive”, and on the wisdom of agriculture as an export commodity. That doesn’t mean that Israeli agriculture should be scrapped, but rather than it should be realigned to meet the needs of domestic consumption, and on crops and farming methods that use water sparingly and efficiently.

Water. The current water crisis is giving this issue the focus it deserves. Israel should aim to achieve water security by living within the means of its resources, while also supplementing them with an aggressive program to desalinate seawater. Water wastage must be eliminated, water priced correctly and reused and recycled indefinitely. Israel’s lakes, stream and aquifers must be rehabilitated and allowing to replenish themselves for the generations and needs to come. Israel must continue extensive tree planting efforts to restore or engineer the best possible climate, vegetative cover and rainfall pattern for the country. Israel should preferably maintain a “veto” when it comes to shared water resources.

I see these four items as the baseline Israel should aim for in an effort to achieve some degree of resource independence and security. The Zionist agenda still has a number of unchecked items on it. “Autarky” in this limited sense should be seen as one of them.

This blogger hopes that Israel will end up with a broad-based coalition that excludes only the detestable ultra-Orthodox parties.

Such a coalition might enable Israel to address her own regional problems – she has the means to do so – before well- (or ill-) intentioned outside interference causes even more damage.

Israel’s problems (or rather, her inability to address those problems) are not external. Contrary to all appearances, they are internal. Once those internal choices have been made (e.g. what DO we want to do with Judea and Samaria), the external problems will be much less intractable. Because of Israel’s political or electoral system, however, whatever consensus exists cannot be translated into government policy (or is undermined by coalition deals and compromises).

Lastly, a hope that inspiring (or at least competent) leadership will emerge from the process.

In a previous post, I looked at whether Google’s then recently launched Knol ("unit of knowledge") would provide fertile ground for Anti-Semitism 2.0. The conclusion at that stage was that the new platform would need to be carefully monitored to ensure it wasn’t hijacked by haters. It’s now apparent that Google Knol (with +/-100,000 articles) is not the Wikipedia killer some of us thought it might be, at least not at this stage.

In a move that will create further competition for Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica recently announced that users will have the facility to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version. Any such changes or additions made to Britannica entries would have to be vetted by one of the company’s staff or freelance editors before the changes go “live”.

To my mind, this is closer to how Wikipedia’s editing model or process should look, and would limit much of the abuse that currently plagues the free encyclopaedia.

Whether this step will help Encyclopedia Britannica to regain some of the ground it lost to Wikipedia is another matter. Although Britannica retains the reputation and perception that its content has greater credibility than that of Wikipedia, that content is neither as broad nor as deep in many cases, and is certainly more difficult to access.

As a blogger (“Web publisher”), I was able to obtain complimentary access to Britannica Online (a free one-year subscription to the Web site). Despite this, however, (and despite my misgivings about Wikipedia) I continue to rely on it as a “good enough” tool for online research and reference. (Hey, I’m not writing a thesis here.)

My threat assessment on the Anti-Semitism 2.0 front for Britannica 2.0? Negligible risk.

Links/Reading/Resources:

• Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0 – BizTech – Technology
• Britannica 2.0 shows Wikipedia how it’s done – Times Online
• Britannica Wants to Be More Like Wikipedia: Lets Users Contribute – ReadWriteWeb
• Britannica and Wikipedia – elearnspace
• BBC NEWS | Technology | Britannica reaches out to the web

Related posts:

• Altneuland: Is CAMERA trying to warp Wikipedia?
• Altneuland: Anti-Semitism 2.0: Just hit Enter
• Altneuland: Google Knol: The Next Big Thing for anti-Semitism 2.0?

Note to: Tzipi Livni (or her successor)

When you get back to your desk at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, please initiate an investigation into upgrading the customer-facing Web and other IT infrastructure at the MFA.

I’ve tried accessing this page several times today, and each time encountered the same error message. Israel simply cannot afford to have its Foreign Affairs website down or inaccessible, certainly not for this length of time. If I was just another member of the global public, I would by now be getting my information from the Al-Jazeera, BBC or Hamas websites. I bet they’re all serving pages right now!

Page Load Error

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/FAQ_Operation_Gaza_Jan_2009.htm

Network Timeout

The server at www.mfa.gov.il is taking too long to respond.

The requested site did not respond to a connection request and the browser has stopped waiting for a reply.

* Could the server be experiencing high demand or a temporary outage? Try again later.

* Are you unable to browse other sites? Check the computer’s network connection.

* Is your computer or network protected by a firewall or proxy? Incorrect settings can interfere with Web browsing.

* Still having trouble? Consult your network administrator or Internet provider for assistance.

Let’s see Israel’s vaunted qualitative and technological edge put to work here.

This is one of those articles that’s been open in my browser for ages, simply because I haven’t been sure what to do with it: do I adopt it, blog about it, claim it as my own, save it, print it, forward it, or all the above!?

Without attempting to paraphrase or quote extensively from the article, the essence of what the author (Ophir Falk) is proposing is this (skewed towards what I consider important):

• Like any country one might care to name, Israel needs secure and recognised borders
• Such borders are not likely to be achieved in negotiation with Fatah, Hamas, the PA, the PLO, or any other Palestinian organisation or body; there is, quite simply, no partner for peace
• Israel should therefore set its own borders (after an internal consensus-building phase) and impose them on the ground
• The approach is built around the concept of the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” or BATNA. (From what I gather BATNA is usually applied to commercial rather than diplomatic affairs, but is seems appropriate here.)

To quote from the article:

The "secure and recognized" borders should strive for international recognition and be based on a simple criteria of Maximum Area, Maximum Israelis and Minimum Non-Israelis within Israel’s borders, limiting the evacuation of residents (of all nationalities) to an absolute minimum.

The article doesn’t get into questions such as:

• If and how the necessary international recognition can be achieved
• Whether any territories will remain under military occupation, without becoming part of Israel proper
• Related to the second point, what kind of regime will prevail in the evacuated territories, and to what extent will Israel concern itself with this.

While the article is not a complete roadmap to achieving secure and recognised borders, it makes a good starting point for the debate.

Ophir Falk is a research fellow at the International Counter-Terrorism Center in Herzliya.

Links/Reading/Resources:

• Defining our own borders – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews
• Best alternative to a negotiated agreement – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• International Institute for Counter – Terrorism

Commentators often (used to?) reflect on what lessons the surrounding Arab/Muslim nations could learn from their tiny neighbour, Israel. The reverse hasn’t often been true; there’s relatively little that others in the region are doing that Israel would do well to emulate.

In this regard, however, it’s always a good idea to keep an eye on what Abu Dhabi is up to. The capital and second most populous “city-state” in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Abu Dhabi impresses again with the planned construction of the world’s greenest city – Masdar City. According to this item on the WWF Website:

Masdar City – which will be zero-carbon, zero-waste and car-free – plans to exceed the requirements of the 10 sustainability principles of the One Planet Living programme, a global initiative launched by WWF and environmental consultancy BioRegional.

Masdar City will be an entirely new city, built from the ground up on green principles.

For a variety of reasons, the era of new towns and villages in Israel is probably pretty much over, so there’s not much to learn in that regard. (The luxury Eden Hills development might be considered the exception, but that was widely criticised by Israel’s green movement as an exercise in greenwashing, and will probably not easily be repeated. The developing northern Israeli community of Nurit may provide a better model, but is also on the dormitory suburb end of the settlement scale.)

I believe, however, that it is both possible and necessary to “retrofit” as many as possible of these green technologies, principles and processes to existing communities in Israel. The Israeli experience in this regard will potentially be even more useful to the rest of the world, now slowly realising the necessity of resource independence and security, and “closed system” communities that consume less resources and produce less waste.

This item on NPR should prove helpful in gaining a quick understanding of what the Masdar City project is about.

Links/Reading/Resources:

• Masdar City – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• WWF – WWF, Abu Dhabi unveil plans for sustainable city
• Abu Dhabi Aims to Build First Carbon-Neutral City: NPR
• The Forbidden Fruit of Eden Hills | Green Prophet
• Israel builds its first ‘eco-friendly’ town – ISRAEL21c

Those who recall Ira Levin’s best selling 70s novel “The Boys from Brazil” may be forgiven for thinking that the truth really is stranger than fiction.

According to this article in the Telegraph:

His [Mengele's] task was to carry out experiments to discover by what method of genetic quirk twins were produced – and then to artificially increase the Aryan birthrate for his master, Adolf Hitler.

Now, a historian claims, Mengele’s notorious experiments may have borne fruit.

For years scientists have failed to discover why as many as one in five pregnancies in a small Brazilian town have resulted in twins – most of them blond haired and blue eyed.

In a new book, Mengele: the Angel of Death in South America, the Argentine historian Jorge Camarasa, a specialist in the post-war Nazi flight to South America, has painstakingly pieced together the Nazi doctor’s mysterious later years.

After speaking to the townspeople of Candido Godoi, he is convinced that Mengele continued his genetic experiments with twins – with startling results.

And, Mr Camarasa claims, it was here that soon after the birthrate of twins began to spiral.

"I think Candido Godoi may have been Mengele’s laboratory, where he finally managed to fulfil his dreams of creating a master race of blond haired, blue eyed Aryans," he said.

Unfortunately Camarasa’s book (Mengele: the Angel of Death in South America) appears to be available only in Spanish at this stage.

In his latest Weekly Opinion Column, M J Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum ended off the piece with a somewhat off-topic broadside against Muammar Qaddafi and The New York Times (for running Qadaffi’s op-ed on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), saying:

Is the Gray Lady senile? The New York Times this week ran an op-ed on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Muammar Qadaffi. It was, predictably, thoroughly insane. I understand that Qadaffi has the petrodollars to hire the best lobbyists in town who are well connected at the Times but there have to be limits. Here’s one. How about no op-eds on peace by terrorists who shoot down American airliners with hundreds of American college students on board, heading home for Christmas break? Even if said terrorist is very very rich.

While I agree heartily with the sentiment, I’m not sure why this righteous indignation is reserved for “terrorists who shoot down American airliners with hundreds of American college students on board”.

The column – which dealt with George Mitchell’s appointment as special envoy to the Middle East – doesn’t seem to have much to say about Palestinian terrorism against Israel’s civilian population:

For a time it appeared that Israelis and Palestinians would end their conflict before Irish Catholics and Protestants. It was in 1993 that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo Agreement on the White House lawn.

But then Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli terrorist and, just as the killer intended, Oslo died shortly after its Israeli sponsor. After Rabin’s murder, neither Israelis nor Palestinians fully observed the agreement (although it still succeeded in dramatically reducing the violence).

While it mentions “terrorists on both sides”, the only reference to a specific act of terror is the above mention of Rabin’s assassination.

Presumably we are to deduce from this that Arafat was one of the moderates, trying to keep the real terrorists (not the PLO) in check.

While I realise that Israel has in the past (and will in the future) be forced to deal with terrorists, let’s not allow her to do so in a state of self-delusion. Let’s understand clearly that we are dealing with terrorists (including Holocaust deniers), who would much prefer Israel’s destruction; not “moderates” or partners for peace. Israel may have forced some in the region to accept its existence, but it should not fool itself into believing they are happy about it. Shake hands, by all means, but stop kissing cheeks!

For an altogether different perspective on George Mitchell’s appointment, see this excellent article by David Bedein.

Links/Reading/Resources:

1. At Last, an Honest Broker
2. Op-Ed Contributor – The One-State Solution
3. Mitchell, A Mideast Envoy With A Tendentious Legacy

Israel has not fought a full-scale conventional war since the Yom Kippur War of October 1973. Military operations since then have tended to be of an asymmetrical nature, fought against non-state opponents (although the Lebanon War of 1982 included both state and non-state adversaries).

At the same time, the Israeli military has had an “image problem” dating back to the 1982 Lebanon War. The onslaught of images, video, accusations and commentary reached a fever pitch during the recent operations against Hamas in the Gaza strip, with charges of disproportionate or excessive force, targeting of civilians, use of illegal munitions, war crimes and even genocide now the common currency of Arab leaders, the Western media, UN functionaries and Israel-bashers worldwide.

IDF and Israeli government spokesmen, Jewish organisations and other pro-Israel bodies and individuals have struggled manfully to set the record straight, and repair the damage to Israel’s reputation. Despite these efforts, however, we are rediscovering what the propagandists in the first part of the 20th Century knew: a dozen scholarly articles or detailed rebuttals can just barely undo the damage done by a single outrageous lie.

The defence of Israel’s reputation and record will have to continue into the foreseeable future. We need to ask, however, whether massive sustained operations on the scale of Cast Lead in Gaza are the right way to address the tactics of Hamas, Hezbollah, and anyone else who would imitate them. Is there a way to achieve the same or better results without a huge amount of damage to Israel’s neighbourhood and her standing in the world community, and without Israel’s citizens having to endure weeks, months or years of sustained rocket attacks?

Perhaps, instead of stoically enduring these bombardments for extended periods, Israel and the IDF need to play the neighbourhood cop on the beat, applying the broken windows theory to dealing with rocket and other terror attacks, as well as the build-up of armaments on her frontiers?

How might the urban decay and crime-fighting broken windows theory be successfully applied to the asymmetrical threats against Israel? It could involve applying the following principles:

• Don’t allow massive build-ups of armaments to take place on Israel’s frontiers (frontiers being defined in terms of the capabilities and range of the weapons). Tackle the problem before critical mass has been reached.
• Respond to each and every incident of provocation or terror, but in a time, place and manner of Israel’s choosing.
• Mainly utilise pinpoint strikes and targeted assassination instead of relatively ineffective return fire against a now empty launch site.
• Consider any piece of terror infrastructure “fair game” as a target for retaliation, even if totally unrelated to the original incident.
• Target any member of the terror organisation, using a “top down” approach (i.e. starting with the leadership cadre), with no distinction between military and political wings and a special emphasis on media spokespeople. (There is no reason why Israel should respect the convenient and artificial distinction between the military and political wings of a terrorist organisation such as Hamas.)
• Don’t limit the response to the area of direct conflict. Actions in host countries and against weapons or personnel in transit on land, sea or air should not be considered out of scope.
• Don’t compromise human intelligence sources or other capabilities when selecting targets.
• Media statements should emphasise the original incident to which the response relates.

Let’s face it: The war in Gaza didn’t play well in the media (exactly as it was intended not to). Israel must find a better way to “manage” these asymmetrical conflicts, preferably one that flies under the media and public opinion radar.

Israel cannot afford to squander its goodwill, media, public relations and diplomatic assets through a sledgehammer approach to dealing with occurrences of terror. Incidents must be responded to as and when they occur, arms smuggling prevented, military build-ups nipped in the bud and leadership cadres targeted at will. Take the fight to the other side, relentlessly. The old proverb could have been meant for just such situations:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

(An earlier draft of this post was originally published on the Israel Insider website on January 21, 2009, here.)

The news networks are bloated with images of the worldwide protests against Israel’s operation in Gaza.

While my response is obviously partisan, it really doesn’t take much intellectual effort to get closer to the truth about why Israel is in Gaza (in fact, why it should have taken action a lot sooner). I therefore see this “stop the nasty war and those brutish Israelis” reaction as a combination of the following:

• Ignorance, wilful or otherwise
• Misinformed and/or misguided
• Possibly just plain stupid
• Malicious, with a great deal of overlap with good ol’ fashioned anti-Semitism

While I dislike dragging the Holocaust into every discussion about Israel or Jewish affairs in general, it’s difficult not to (rhetorically) ask the question of these protestors: “Where were you during the Holocaust?” (The real Holocaust, not the Pallywood collateral damage one.)

Perhaps it’s an unfair question; I’m sure the well-intentioned among them would have participated in the WW2 equivalent of taking to the streets. It just seems, though, that having failed to prevent that genocide, these people are determined to besmirch the victims and survivors with the accusation of trying to inflict it on another people.

These observations could apply equally to the UN’s secretary general, the media, and many NGOs and “humanitarian organisations” such as the ICRC, with their ceaseless one-sided condemnations, the endless video loop of Gazan civilian casualties and repetitive accusations about the (self-inflicted) humanitarian crisis and Israel’s weapons and tactics.

This post was originally intended as a reader’s comment on the JTA coverage of the eviction of a group of settlers from the so-called House of Contention or Peace House by the Israeli security forces. Despite repeated attempts using different browsers, I was unable to post the remarks on the JTA website. So be it; here they are.

As with many online articles dealing with controversial issues, the comments play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues.

Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about:

• Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building.
• It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself.
• It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof.
• Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or otherwise.

This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, including:

• What kind of state will we have? A vibrant, modern, democratic state, integrated as far as possible into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day?
• Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel? Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement?
• Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over the use of force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further.

Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron. This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve.

Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing Jewish settlement across the Green Line; in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine. If such a settlement policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences.

In the meantime, settler lawlessness is a threat to Israel’s image and standing in the world, undermines the government’s ability to govern and negotiate, and is ultimately a threat to long-term Jewish survival in the Middle East (given that Jewish life is impossible here without the security provided by the state).

Bring on the rule of law!

I’ve always had an interest in the process and instruments which led to the creation and determined the borders of Mandatory Palestine, and eventually the State of Israel. I was therefore pleased to see that a new book, “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law” by attorney Howard Grief (an “Authority on the Mandate for Palestine”) was recently published. (I’m saying “new”, but the book appears to have its roots in the paper “Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People To The Land Of Israel And Palestine Under International Law”, published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research in 2003.)

It is of vital importance that we all be aware of – and familiar with the outlines of – the historical, legal and moral case for the establishment of a Jewish polity in Palestine. The balancing act we are now called on to perform is how to “reserve our rights” when it comes to this claim, while at the same time recognising the demographic, diplomatic and political realities on the ground, and the need to deal justly with those who now choose to identify themselves as Palestinians.

While I haven’t been able to review the volume (the USD49 price tag is an issue in these troubled economic times), by all accounts it is unquestionably a valuable addition to the bookshelf of Israel advocacy.

The book is available direct from the publishers, or from major online retailers such as Amazon.com:

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law

If your budget for book purchases is exhausted, you can still read the 2003 policy paper here.

A hat tip to Salomon Benzimra from the Think-Israel site (via a comment left on another site.)

Regular readers of this and my other blogs (see below) will have noticed that posting has been somewhat infrequent and irregular of late. As we have now started a process of selling, buying and moving home, this erratic publishing schedule is likely to continue into early 2009.

• Altneuland
• Birkenreis (Old)
• Cafe Birkenreis
• J-Blogosphere
• Plant More Trees

I plan to post the occasional entry whenever possible, and I will still be micro-blogging daily on Twitter (see below) until we’ve settled into our new Nachtasyl.

• Maskil
• Maskil_Update

Our intended move will be to the Johannesburg suburb (“urban village”) of Norwood, and we hope it will be the last for a considerable time! So why the move? I was hoping you’d ask:

• Since leaving the embrace of the corporate world some 18 months ago, I’ve been wanting to live mortgage-free. The move will help facilitate that.
• Our new home will have a much smaller ecological footprint (smaller stand size; less garden and no swimming pool, ponds, etc.).
• Less maintenance and lower monthly household overheads (municipal property rates and services, etc.).
• More suitable to transform into an eco-house or green building without major expenditure.
• More urban, less suburban.
• More resources are now within walking distance. I hope to leave the car in the garage most days.
• Easier access to Jewish community resources (but see below).
• A proper home office environment to work from. (I’m using what should be the dining room, which is open to both the kitchen and living room. Not ideal.)
• Just a better place to ride out the global economic crisis (although we haven’t yet seen the full impact here).
• All in all, a more suitable dwelling for a former corporate IT person, now aspiring/struggling blogger/freelance writer. (Google the term “mid-life crisis”.)

There are some disadvantages. While our new location is more central, we will be further from my family and further from my daughter’s preparatory (primary) school. We’ve starting researching a suitable alternative, but the options are limited, as the school needs to offer Hebrew and Jewish studies. It’s also further from my shul for the last three years, although closer to my pre-Bar Mitzvah shul.

2009 will also see the following changes in focus with regard to my output:

• A single blog (details TBA) rather than trying to spread my efforts over multiple blogs (as well as commenting, social bookmarking, etc.)
• Less emphasis on blogging, with far more emphasis on paid articles for online and offline publications.
• More work on fleshing out various book outlines (and ideas for outlines) into fully-fledged books or e-books.