“All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again” Ecclesiastes 1:7
A recent article published at the WSJ website includes an interview with E. Barak, Israel Minister of Defense.
WSJ, March 8th 2011
“Israel will need to boost military spending and may seek an additional $20 billion in U.S. security assistance to help it manage potential threats stemming from popular upheavals in the Arab world, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday……
….."It's a historic earthquake...a movement in the right direction, quite inspired," Mr. Barak said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, surveying the youthful revolts in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and the Gulf. "It's a movement of the Arab societies toward modernity."….
The issue of qualitative military aid for Israel becomes more essential for us, and I believe also more essential for you," said Mr. Barak, a former prime minister. "It might be wise to invest another $20 billion to upgrade the security of Israel for the next generation or so....A strong, responsible Israel can become a stabilizer in such a turbulent region."
Mr. Barak is famous for his analytical skills; some even consider him a genius. Since I am an average man , I will not question the Aid itself but the argumentation exposed in the interview.
If we apply a rigorous and critical analysis to the argumentation presented for case, the whole debate becomes a complete waste of time. How it comes? The test for such assertion is by asking a simple question: What was Mr. Barak ( and the security establishment he represents) opinion in different circumstances, for example a movement of the Arab society against modernity (instead of “toward”)?? Does he change his mind when circumstances change? Or did the Schnorr become a mantra?
The answer to the test requires just a short glance on recent history: Even when the Middle East was apparently stable, as it was along the last 30 years, the flow of military aid from Washington to Israel was vigorous. The argument in those days was in the line of “under the apparent stability there is some amount of instability ( otherwise, there was no need for dicatorships ) which could, in a more distance future, turn into real threats “. As you can see, the argument was different, but the conclusion is always the same: Schnorr….Even the "Peace" argument i.e. Israel needs the aid to feel secure in order to deal with the inherent risks in any future deal with the Arabs does not hold water. The aid was there but the deal is still far away.
Or let’s take another example: What would be the argument if Arabs gets poorer? I guess that it would something like “Well, Israel is in the midst of a area with social conflicts that may end in military conflicts” Conclusion: Schnorr… . And what if the Arabs get richer (Petro Dollars, for example) ? “Well, Israel needs additional resources to maintain its military edge against powerful and rich potential enemies (Conclusion??)
So, if under any circumstance the conclusion is identical, any argumentation is needless, and as said previously, the interview becomes a waste of time. Therefore if “all the rivers (of reasoning) flow to the sea (of Schnorr)”, the examination should go one step deeper in order to understand the special status of the Schnorr as THE conclusion.
The Schnorr reflect is a logical outcome stemming from Mr. Barak vision of Israel as the “Villa in the Jungle” i.e. the impossibility of a genuine reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world which implies that the future of Israel depends SOLELY on its military might. A Modern Sparta, under constant and eternal threat with no in house Helots must have a sponsor.
Therefore the issue is not the aid itself (an important detail for anyone concerned about the security of Israel) but its wider context. Moreover, the Schnorr game, always disguised under heavy layers of hypocrisy is part of the political game in America and around the Globe. The main issue at stake is the philosophy behind the extended arm begging for foreign money, the message which takes for granted the eternity of war between Israel and its neigbours.
Actually, Mr. Barak can avoid the automatic responses and answer a few simple questions: Didn´t the Schnorr philosophy already fall into the illogical loop of a self fulfilling prophecy maintained by vested interest? A vicious circle of arm race? Now, If the need for aid is genuine, could Mr. Barak detail the set of achievable preconditions for a possible and future “No, Thanks” moment for any military aid?? And what can be done to get a bit closer to that moment? The first questions are informative, contemplative. The last is more of a reminder that history is in constant change, thus there are no eternal slogans valid for all cases. “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man” ( Heraclit). The river of history have changed in the Middle East , so the sea of Schnorr idelogiy should change as well.
Wikepdia : Schnorrer (; also spelled shnorrer) is a Yiddish term meaning "beggar" or "sponger". The word Schnorrer also occurs in German to describe a person, who frequently asks for little things like cigarettes or little sums of money, without offering a return, and has thus come to mean “freeloader”. The English usage of the word denotes a sly chiseller who will get money out of another any way he can, often through an air of entitlement. A schnorrer is distinguished from an ordinary beggar by dint of his boundless chutzpah. The term does not apply to begging or being homeless, but rather a habit of getting things (food, tools) rather than money by politely wanting
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
What are they afraid of ?
The refreshing news coming from Cairo are regarded by many Israelis commentators, as a “threat”: How can genuine (self proclaimed?) democrats regard the chance of a free future for more than 80 million people as a “threat”? I will try to ignore “geopolitical” analysis and try to scratch the surface in order to see what is really behind that ( false) sense of threat.
Well, for many the “Threat” is a possible breakdown of the “stability” the region “enjoyed” along the last 30 years. These “stable” years include the events such as the 1982 invasion to Lebanon, many Palestinian uprisings, massive attacks on Gaza, etc. So stability in that case is not a synonymous to “No more bloodshed “ but refers to the relative impunity the Israelis hard line government enjoyed thanks to a loyal Southern ally, Mr. Mubarak and his gang.. It is clear that from now on the disposition and/or capability of any Egyptian ruler to ignore the natural popular resentment following any Israeli military actions should not be taken for granted. Any future adventure will carry other consequences than the prevailing along the previous “golden era”. That is one big “threat”.
Second “Threat”: A more deep concern arising from the Tahrir Square is what I would call “ Back to the Middle East”. Many Israelis consider their country location as a geographical casualty: According to that perspective, the country is an isolated Western democracy surrounded by wild neighbours (like a good Old Western) and as such it is deemed to be under a constant threat ( Mr Barak used the image of a “mansion in a jungle”). The “logical” conclusion is that the country must isolate itself from its violent neighbourhood, physically (walls), culturally, emotionally, militarily…etc.
In other words, the dominant motto is “My heart is in West and I am at the end of the East” ( as a paraphrase to the medieval poem of Spaniard Iehuda Halevi) . That is a key element in the Israeli self-image and identity. Anyhow, why are Cairo events regarded as a “threat”?
The autocratic regimes around Israel are a fundamental piece of that twisted image of Israel , as they reinforce the image of the ever threatened Democracy ( for internal and external use as well). For quite a long time that system worked with impressive success: Although Tel Aviv is less than 100 Km from a bombarded Gaza its habitants feel as if Gaza´s misery is something remote as Bangladesh. However the fall of Cairo walls was well heard in the neighbourhood and it heralds the end of an illusion that the Yarkon is closer to the Thames than to the Nile.
Third “Threat”: The image of the “Arabs” turned around in less than 20 of street protests. A population fighting for its freedom cannot be regarded anymore as a faceless, ignorant and even ridiculed mob (an image that reinforces Israel´s prominent status). Cairo street protesters were revealed as normal (some of them quite brave) human beings that wish freedom, a descent job, a normal future for themselves and their kids, like most of us, the normal guys. So, if in the other side of the fence there are normal people, why to isolate from them? Are they really a threat? That question could become a serious blow to the cult of “Bitahon”, (security in Hebrew) based upon the fears and history, a cult that displaces a lot of social and identity deep questions that can threaten the actual social relations in the country.
However, threats can turn into opportunities: New constrain” to the political equations of violence might bring second thoughts when comes the time to pull the trigger and should, hopefully, pave the way to a genuine reconciliation process. The new image of the Arab world arising from Cairo should convince Israelis and others that in the other side of the wall there are human beings, not blood thirst fanatics.
The end of isolation and the fall of the real and imaginary Ghetto walls can do only good to Israel. After all the idea of really living in the Middle East, the traditional bridge between West and East can turn to be a not too bad idea. Israel society can become a more just and equal society as the military threat ceases to be an excuse to a polarized society.
As a final word, let us not forget: Despite decades of conflict between Israel and Arabs, any single European nation spilled much more Jewish blood than all its Middle East Neighbours taken together. Tahrir Square events are a good opportunity to remind that simple fact.
Well, for many the “Threat” is a possible breakdown of the “stability” the region “enjoyed” along the last 30 years. These “stable” years include the events such as the 1982 invasion to Lebanon, many Palestinian uprisings, massive attacks on Gaza, etc. So stability in that case is not a synonymous to “No more bloodshed “ but refers to the relative impunity the Israelis hard line government enjoyed thanks to a loyal Southern ally, Mr. Mubarak and his gang.. It is clear that from now on the disposition and/or capability of any Egyptian ruler to ignore the natural popular resentment following any Israeli military actions should not be taken for granted. Any future adventure will carry other consequences than the prevailing along the previous “golden era”. That is one big “threat”.
Second “Threat”: A more deep concern arising from the Tahrir Square is what I would call “ Back to the Middle East”. Many Israelis consider their country location as a geographical casualty: According to that perspective, the country is an isolated Western democracy surrounded by wild neighbours (like a good Old Western) and as such it is deemed to be under a constant threat ( Mr Barak used the image of a “mansion in a jungle”). The “logical” conclusion is that the country must isolate itself from its violent neighbourhood, physically (walls), culturally, emotionally, militarily…etc.
In other words, the dominant motto is “My heart is in West and I am at the end of the East” ( as a paraphrase to the medieval poem of Spaniard Iehuda Halevi) . That is a key element in the Israeli self-image and identity. Anyhow, why are Cairo events regarded as a “threat”?
The autocratic regimes around Israel are a fundamental piece of that twisted image of Israel , as they reinforce the image of the ever threatened Democracy ( for internal and external use as well). For quite a long time that system worked with impressive success: Although Tel Aviv is less than 100 Km from a bombarded Gaza its habitants feel as if Gaza´s misery is something remote as Bangladesh. However the fall of Cairo walls was well heard in the neighbourhood and it heralds the end of an illusion that the Yarkon is closer to the Thames than to the Nile.
Third “Threat”: The image of the “Arabs” turned around in less than 20 of street protests. A population fighting for its freedom cannot be regarded anymore as a faceless, ignorant and even ridiculed mob (an image that reinforces Israel´s prominent status). Cairo street protesters were revealed as normal (some of them quite brave) human beings that wish freedom, a descent job, a normal future for themselves and their kids, like most of us, the normal guys. So, if in the other side of the fence there are normal people, why to isolate from them? Are they really a threat? That question could become a serious blow to the cult of “Bitahon”, (security in Hebrew) based upon the fears and history, a cult that displaces a lot of social and identity deep questions that can threaten the actual social relations in the country.
However, threats can turn into opportunities: New constrain” to the political equations of violence might bring second thoughts when comes the time to pull the trigger and should, hopefully, pave the way to a genuine reconciliation process. The new image of the Arab world arising from Cairo should convince Israelis and others that in the other side of the wall there are human beings, not blood thirst fanatics.
The end of isolation and the fall of the real and imaginary Ghetto walls can do only good to Israel. After all the idea of really living in the Middle East, the traditional bridge between West and East can turn to be a not too bad idea. Israel society can become a more just and equal society as the military threat ceases to be an excuse to a polarized society.
As a final word, let us not forget: Despite decades of conflict between Israel and Arabs, any single European nation spilled much more Jewish blood than all its Middle East Neighbours taken together. Tahrir Square events are a good opportunity to remind that simple fact.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Hillel´s Forgotten Lesson
That post should have written in Hebrew.
” What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellowman; this is the whole Law. The rest is but commentary”. ( Hillel The Elder , 1st century )
Last week the Israeli cabinet voted through a "declaration of loyalty" a bill which would require non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic State" . Although the bill that must still receive the approval of the parliament before it becomes law it is an important step toward legislation as the Government controls the majority in the Knesset.
For an outsider, such a Law might sound a fair decision but, once again, the devil is in the details : First of all , the Oath is required only from non Jews . Second it requires Loyalty to vague terms as “Democratic” “ Jewish” . Needless to say, the Law is controversial and many of its critics appeal to modern values. However, I will try to shed light on that decision from a "Jewish" perspective and show that the Law as proposed also clashes with less modern traditions.
If loyalty can be simplified by a “!” mark, Judaism can be represented by a ”?”. To illustrate that point, I will bring as an example the opening of the Babylonian Talmud ,the central pillar of Jewish tradition. That book commences (in a non typical fashion for a religious text) with a ... question ...in which a scholar raises his own doubts about a former .... question ! Lets have a look on the quote:
“MISHNAH. FROM WHAT TIME MAY ONE RECITE THE SHEMA' IN THE EVENING?....GEMARA. On what does the Tanna ( “Scholar”) base himself that he commences: FROM WHAT TIME?"( Babylonian Talmud Soncino translation , Tractate Berakhot Page 2).
A few explanations:
Mishnah : Oral Law
Gemara: The book that gathers the debates concerning Oral and Written Law.
Shema: Literally “Hear, O Israel! Adonai is our God! Adonai is One!” The most important part of the prayer service in Judaism, recited twice a day.
I will not get into details about that fascinating discussion, but it serves as an example to the spirit of the Jewish culture. That emphasis on “debate” does not mean that Judaism is alien to loyalty. On the contrary, the above discussion deals with a sort of “Loyalty declaration” an observant Jew must recite twice a day. But even that small piece of evidence reveals many interesting aspects about the nature of loyalty.
First of all, the Shema call is a personal manifestation which does not imply necessarily a public realm ,let alone the existence of the State or clergy intermediation . The call is external , verbal but reflexive, and in public service it is recited by each and everyone of the prayers, as a sort of special and personal commitment. The main point is that loyalty is in essence a personal choice, not an issue to be imposed from the establishment and which stems from the individual.
Second: The debate above is practical by its nature ( “From what time?” “On What”How? Etc.) as are most of the debates in the Talmud. The Jewish tradition considers big declarations or profound debates as meaningless unless they are accompanied by concrete acts ( the “Mitzvot”). In our modern case, the new law does not specify what does it mean to be loyal to the “Jewish and Democratic” and what are the concrete terms for such loyalty . If the idea is to emphasize the supremacy of Law, than the “loyalty” is useless, since it would be sufficient to declare a personal commitment to obey , protect and defend the Law. If the idea is to emphasize the Jewishness of the State, we may fall into a deep trap : Israel is NOT ruled by the Jewish legal Code, so in that sense it is not a “Jewish” State . If “Jewishness” means a Jewish cultural character or symbols it is a too vague and ambiguous term to demand “loyalty” to. And how do you measure loyalty? Is it a binary term or there are various degrees of “Loyalty” ? And what is exactly Democracy? The rule of majority or also the rights of minorities ? And so on , and so on...
Third : The modern version of “Loyalty” is not only discriminatory ( only non Jews are required to declare ) but alien to the Spirit of the Shema . The obligation to recite the Shema twice a day is imposed on each and every observant, even on direct descendants of King David. From that perspective kinship is just one condition, (...not necessary, let alone sufficient), to guarantee the commitment to the Jewish World. The daily recite is a reaffirmation of the idea that loyalty must be reinforced even among the (apparently) most most loyal.
Back to the first quote to close the circle, Hillel´s comment was a response to a Gentile who asked to understand the whole Torah on one leg ( his rival, Shamai sent away the gentile...) . BTW, Hillel´s line is dominant in almost every dispute between these two scholars . Hillel would ask in our case :What would American Jews say if the US Congress approves a Law which requires non Christians to swear loyalty to a "Christian State" ??? I do not even dare to imagine.... As Hillel stated, the basic principle of the Jewish tradition is the respect for the other and the recognition that you might be some day in other´s people place.
My conclusion is that the proposed legislation is not only contrary to the spirit of a modern Democratic State but reveals a deep misunderstanding or ignorance about Judaism among Israeli rulers.
” What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellowman; this is the whole Law. The rest is but commentary”. ( Hillel The Elder , 1st century )
Last week the Israeli cabinet voted through a "declaration of loyalty" a bill which would require non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic State" . Although the bill that must still receive the approval of the parliament before it becomes law it is an important step toward legislation as the Government controls the majority in the Knesset.
For an outsider, such a Law might sound a fair decision but, once again, the devil is in the details : First of all , the Oath is required only from non Jews . Second it requires Loyalty to vague terms as “Democratic” “ Jewish” . Needless to say, the Law is controversial and many of its critics appeal to modern values. However, I will try to shed light on that decision from a "Jewish" perspective and show that the Law as proposed also clashes with less modern traditions.
If loyalty can be simplified by a “!” mark, Judaism can be represented by a ”?”. To illustrate that point, I will bring as an example the opening of the Babylonian Talmud ,the central pillar of Jewish tradition. That book commences (in a non typical fashion for a religious text) with a ... question ...in which a scholar raises his own doubts about a former .... question ! Lets have a look on the quote:
“MISHNAH. FROM WHAT TIME MAY ONE RECITE THE SHEMA' IN THE EVENING?....GEMARA. On what does the Tanna ( “Scholar”) base himself that he commences: FROM WHAT TIME?"( Babylonian Talmud Soncino translation , Tractate Berakhot Page 2).
A few explanations:
Mishnah : Oral Law
Gemara: The book that gathers the debates concerning Oral and Written Law.
Shema: Literally “Hear, O Israel! Adonai is our God! Adonai is One!” The most important part of the prayer service in Judaism, recited twice a day.
I will not get into details about that fascinating discussion, but it serves as an example to the spirit of the Jewish culture. That emphasis on “debate” does not mean that Judaism is alien to loyalty. On the contrary, the above discussion deals with a sort of “Loyalty declaration” an observant Jew must recite twice a day. But even that small piece of evidence reveals many interesting aspects about the nature of loyalty.
First of all, the Shema call is a personal manifestation which does not imply necessarily a public realm ,let alone the existence of the State or clergy intermediation . The call is external , verbal but reflexive, and in public service it is recited by each and everyone of the prayers, as a sort of special and personal commitment. The main point is that loyalty is in essence a personal choice, not an issue to be imposed from the establishment and which stems from the individual.
Second: The debate above is practical by its nature ( “From what time?” “On What”How? Etc.) as are most of the debates in the Talmud. The Jewish tradition considers big declarations or profound debates as meaningless unless they are accompanied by concrete acts ( the “Mitzvot”). In our modern case, the new law does not specify what does it mean to be loyal to the “Jewish and Democratic” and what are the concrete terms for such loyalty . If the idea is to emphasize the supremacy of Law, than the “loyalty” is useless, since it would be sufficient to declare a personal commitment to obey , protect and defend the Law. If the idea is to emphasize the Jewishness of the State, we may fall into a deep trap : Israel is NOT ruled by the Jewish legal Code, so in that sense it is not a “Jewish” State . If “Jewishness” means a Jewish cultural character or symbols it is a too vague and ambiguous term to demand “loyalty” to. And how do you measure loyalty? Is it a binary term or there are various degrees of “Loyalty” ? And what is exactly Democracy? The rule of majority or also the rights of minorities ? And so on , and so on...
Third : The modern version of “Loyalty” is not only discriminatory ( only non Jews are required to declare ) but alien to the Spirit of the Shema . The obligation to recite the Shema twice a day is imposed on each and every observant, even on direct descendants of King David. From that perspective kinship is just one condition, (...not necessary, let alone sufficient), to guarantee the commitment to the Jewish World. The daily recite is a reaffirmation of the idea that loyalty must be reinforced even among the (apparently) most most loyal.
Back to the first quote to close the circle, Hillel´s comment was a response to a Gentile who asked to understand the whole Torah on one leg ( his rival, Shamai sent away the gentile...) . BTW, Hillel´s line is dominant in almost every dispute between these two scholars . Hillel would ask in our case :What would American Jews say if the US Congress approves a Law which requires non Christians to swear loyalty to a "Christian State" ??? I do not even dare to imagine.... As Hillel stated, the basic principle of the Jewish tradition is the respect for the other and the recognition that you might be some day in other´s people place.
My conclusion is that the proposed legislation is not only contrary to the spirit of a modern Democratic State but reveals a deep misunderstanding or ignorance about Judaism among Israeli rulers.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"To Freeze or Not to Freeze,... That Is NOT The Question!.
Any impartial observer of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would probably conclude that the ongoing crisis concerning the extension of the temporal settlements´ building freeze is ,for the most, a bad joke. How it comes that such "no issue" has paralyzed a 20 years Peace Process as if the fate of the whole world was depends on it???. Newspapers are filled with question marks: Will Israel freeze? For how long (2 months!! 3 months? 4 and a half?? ) ? What has the US President to say about it ? And the Arab League? What are the recent political maneuvers in Israel? Will Abu Mazen renounce? A genuine Mid East circus….
A somewhat more benevolent spectator would just label all the mess as a weird sitcom. However, if it was only a question of literal tastes, Dayenu*. …. But bearing in mind that this specific Reality Show is very, very real and can easily turn into a tragic “Horror Show” for other anonymous protagonists ( i.e. average citizens) , leaders should be reminded that are playing with fire.
From the outset, the whole idea of a temporal freeze was a bad Salomonic “solution”. Lets analyze the decision by utilizing a simple "What-If" methodology.
Scenario A: If Israel eventually will evacuate the occupied territories, a PERMANENT freezing would turn to be the appropriate measure. Temporal... meaningless.
Scenario B: If Israel does not intend to evacuate the settlements, the real meaning of a temporal freezing is a few months of delay in further construction, turning the freezing into an empty gesture.
However, reality is not a binary game so the freezing should be seen as a gesture of good faith, not a must but a sort of temporal cease of fire while negotiating for peace. Fair enough?
Well, if the freezing was not restricted in time, it could be considered as a step toward reconciliation, equivalent to a cease of fire in times of war. Though, the temporality ingredient kills the remains of any possible good faith since it actually imposes a arbitral restriction for the period for negotiations, similar to saying: If Peace is not reached within XX months, we all go home and end the negotiations. What next, G-D only knows ... Whoever is familiar with the Peace Process knows that 10 months is nothing, really nothing and to get an agreement, therefore “Temporality” is a “No Freezing“ de Facto. In light of this perspective the two months extension, as President Obama is asking for, sounds as a pathetic and cynical political maneuver ( Mid Term elections) and nothing more. Furthermore, reality has its own inner watch, so the imposition of a restricted timetable is artificial.
If you needed a definitive confirmation for the meaninglessness of the “temporal freezing”, just open the last week newspapers. The disproportionate attention for a meaningless topic in the media is fed by politicians and their spokesmen. That is a classical political maneuver aimed to deviate the public debate from the core business and their failures to achieve real results from the negotiations. Reminder : Israel still maintains for more than 40 years millions of human beings under military regime without basic civil, human and political rights ( as human beings,,,, national rights is luxury under the current circumstances) . The Palestinian are still divided with a leadership that did not achieve any meaningful result from its current strategy (which is …???) , to alleviate the situation of its people, besides some economic fragile recovery in the West Bank. And finally, the US President did not achieve much of his initial goals in the process as part of a global American strategy toward the Arab world.
So we might get some extended period of freezing but the obstacles will remain in place. The real and not so temporal freezing of the Peace Process can generate a new wave of violence or a false sense of stability before the next round. What is needed is to renew the negotiations and if you wish so , do it under a permanent, genuine and unlimited freezing of any construction activity in the Occupied Territories. The alternatives are so bad that any temporal restriction is meaningless and even harmful.
That is the real deal on the table, the rest is pure hot air that will freeze soon.
*The word "Dayenu" means approximately, "it would have been enough for us", "it would have been sufficient", or "it would have sufficed" (day in Hebrew is "enough", and -enu the first person plural suffix, "to us").
A somewhat more benevolent spectator would just label all the mess as a weird sitcom. However, if it was only a question of literal tastes, Dayenu*. …. But bearing in mind that this specific Reality Show is very, very real and can easily turn into a tragic “Horror Show” for other anonymous protagonists ( i.e. average citizens) , leaders should be reminded that are playing with fire.
From the outset, the whole idea of a temporal freeze was a bad Salomonic “solution”. Lets analyze the decision by utilizing a simple "What-If" methodology.
Scenario A: If Israel eventually will evacuate the occupied territories, a PERMANENT freezing would turn to be the appropriate measure. Temporal... meaningless.
Scenario B: If Israel does not intend to evacuate the settlements, the real meaning of a temporal freezing is a few months of delay in further construction, turning the freezing into an empty gesture.
However, reality is not a binary game so the freezing should be seen as a gesture of good faith, not a must but a sort of temporal cease of fire while negotiating for peace. Fair enough?
Well, if the freezing was not restricted in time, it could be considered as a step toward reconciliation, equivalent to a cease of fire in times of war. Though, the temporality ingredient kills the remains of any possible good faith since it actually imposes a arbitral restriction for the period for negotiations, similar to saying: If Peace is not reached within XX months, we all go home and end the negotiations. What next, G-D only knows ... Whoever is familiar with the Peace Process knows that 10 months is nothing, really nothing and to get an agreement, therefore “Temporality” is a “No Freezing“ de Facto. In light of this perspective the two months extension, as President Obama is asking for, sounds as a pathetic and cynical political maneuver ( Mid Term elections) and nothing more. Furthermore, reality has its own inner watch, so the imposition of a restricted timetable is artificial.
If you needed a definitive confirmation for the meaninglessness of the “temporal freezing”, just open the last week newspapers. The disproportionate attention for a meaningless topic in the media is fed by politicians and their spokesmen. That is a classical political maneuver aimed to deviate the public debate from the core business and their failures to achieve real results from the negotiations. Reminder : Israel still maintains for more than 40 years millions of human beings under military regime without basic civil, human and political rights ( as human beings,,,, national rights is luxury under the current circumstances) . The Palestinian are still divided with a leadership that did not achieve any meaningful result from its current strategy (which is …???) , to alleviate the situation of its people, besides some economic fragile recovery in the West Bank. And finally, the US President did not achieve much of his initial goals in the process as part of a global American strategy toward the Arab world.
So we might get some extended period of freezing but the obstacles will remain in place. The real and not so temporal freezing of the Peace Process can generate a new wave of violence or a false sense of stability before the next round. What is needed is to renew the negotiations and if you wish so , do it under a permanent, genuine and unlimited freezing of any construction activity in the Occupied Territories. The alternatives are so bad that any temporal restriction is meaningless and even harmful.
That is the real deal on the table, the rest is pure hot air that will freeze soon.
*The word "Dayenu" means approximately, "it would have been enough for us", "it would have been sufficient", or "it would have sufficed" (day in Hebrew is "enough", and -enu the first person plural suffix, "to us").
Monday, September 20, 2010
European Lessons ( Part II )
In a previous post http://enriquefleischmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/european-lessons-for-middle-east-part-i.html) I´ve tried to present an historical perspective for Mid East Peace Process, a lesson that the peoples and their leaders could learn from the European history while dealing with the “Peace Process” . Very briefly, the main message was that Mid East peoples should learn how try to avoid the European bloody path to Peace: Europe and its people managed to achieve a relatively calm and prosper era (since 1945) after waisting millions of human lives during hundred of years of wars and conflicts which devoured an infinite amount of economic resources. For us, the younger generations a peaceful Europe sounds a banality but remember that the last 60 years are an exceptional long period with no serious violent confrontations in the Continent . For the record, the last 300 years yielded wars in 1939-45,1914-18, 1919, 1870, 1866, 1805-1815, 1763, 1711, .. just to name a few).Middle East people should understand that the way to prosperity is 180 grades opposed to war , while the alternative is paying the expensive REBBE GUELT ( “Teacher´s Salary” in Yiddish) with their own blood.
Being conscious that the former analysis might sound discouraging ( which is not the case !!) I decided to make use of the same “Raw Material” in order to develop a somewhat more encouraging and hopeful conclusions.
The first step would be to arrange history in a more accurate perspective in three aspects : Casualties, Time and Space.
Casualties : The Mid East conflict has yielded app. 101-115 thousands casualties ( Wikipedia) , WWII 60 Millions, WWI 20 millions ….the death toll table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) is a sad reminder of our dubious humanity . Before proceeding , I would like to stress that each and every casualty is a terrible loss, and any statistical “comparison” is misleading from a human point of view. But if the depth of hatred is highly influenced from the level of collective suffering, than a rough comparison can give a ray of hope. As I said before, the comparison is aimed to show that even after terrible bloodsheds human beings are able to understand that an ongoing and endless cycle of vengeance is useless. History teaches us that victims do not necessarily turn into the eternal combustible that feed the flame of hatred .
Time : Our high speed era can hardly cope with an historical perspective, since events are not viewed in a wider context abd so they loose their meaning within a very short period of time. Instead of eternity we became used to think in “short time eternities” . However, if we just maintain a bit longer run perspective, time becomes another dimension that should be considered in our "European" lesson : France and England maintained a 100 years war, the border line between Germany and France was a main focus of hostilities for centuries, the 30 years war was a devastating experience of Europe, let alone the long run Reconquista in Spain.... so the Mid East few dozens years struggle is undoubtedly too long but not extraordinarily long in historical terms. Our generations were condemned to spend their entire lives surrounded by the “Conflict” , an experience which brings some of us to sad conclusions of NO HOPE. History tells us that a different coexistence is possible, and history provides strong evidences that even the longest conflicts eventually end .
Space or Clash of Civilizations : The last last point is less related to Europe and more to “enmity” between Jews and Arabs/ Muslims. The Conflict is sometimes described as part of an unavoidable “Clash of Civilizations” ( Why that “clash” occurs now? Why it did not take place before? ), so as a “byproduct” of that “clash” the conflict can be solved, if at all, only as part of a wider global arrangement ( or after an Armageddon style battle) . That perspective leaves very little place for any solution : the more complicated and confused an issue becomes, its solution becomes further ( in economic parlor : additional imposed constraints just remove further an optimal solution) . However, from historical perspective Jews and Arabs got along much better than European and Jews, so the Conflict can hardly be considered as a mere product of a phenomenon that hardly existed before the foundation of Israel (Note : Zionism never saw itself as a colonization movement in a European sense). Therefore if the KISS principle ( Keep It Simple , Stupid) is applied and the conflict is confined to a strict political , national and territorial arena, expelling external “noises” both sides might be able to find a practical solution , a “second best” solution much faster .
As I said in the beginning, there is still hope that both people are able to advance with the process before it gets too late. History shows that it is possible, but we should not forget that “Time is money” especially in its special local meaning ( in Hebrew the word DAM or DAMIM means “Blood” but also “Money”).
Being conscious that the former analysis might sound discouraging ( which is not the case !!) I decided to make use of the same “Raw Material” in order to develop a somewhat more encouraging and hopeful conclusions.
The first step would be to arrange history in a more accurate perspective in three aspects : Casualties, Time and Space.
Casualties : The Mid East conflict has yielded app. 101-115 thousands casualties ( Wikipedia) , WWII 60 Millions, WWI 20 millions ….the death toll table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) is a sad reminder of our dubious humanity . Before proceeding , I would like to stress that each and every casualty is a terrible loss, and any statistical “comparison” is misleading from a human point of view. But if the depth of hatred is highly influenced from the level of collective suffering, than a rough comparison can give a ray of hope. As I said before, the comparison is aimed to show that even after terrible bloodsheds human beings are able to understand that an ongoing and endless cycle of vengeance is useless. History teaches us that victims do not necessarily turn into the eternal combustible that feed the flame of hatred .
Time : Our high speed era can hardly cope with an historical perspective, since events are not viewed in a wider context abd so they loose their meaning within a very short period of time. Instead of eternity we became used to think in “short time eternities” . However, if we just maintain a bit longer run perspective, time becomes another dimension that should be considered in our "European" lesson : France and England maintained a 100 years war, the border line between Germany and France was a main focus of hostilities for centuries, the 30 years war was a devastating experience of Europe, let alone the long run Reconquista in Spain.... so the Mid East few dozens years struggle is undoubtedly too long but not extraordinarily long in historical terms. Our generations were condemned to spend their entire lives surrounded by the “Conflict” , an experience which brings some of us to sad conclusions of NO HOPE. History tells us that a different coexistence is possible, and history provides strong evidences that even the longest conflicts eventually end .
Space or Clash of Civilizations : The last last point is less related to Europe and more to “enmity” between Jews and Arabs/ Muslims. The Conflict is sometimes described as part of an unavoidable “Clash of Civilizations” ( Why that “clash” occurs now? Why it did not take place before? ), so as a “byproduct” of that “clash” the conflict can be solved, if at all, only as part of a wider global arrangement ( or after an Armageddon style battle) . That perspective leaves very little place for any solution : the more complicated and confused an issue becomes, its solution becomes further ( in economic parlor : additional imposed constraints just remove further an optimal solution) . However, from historical perspective Jews and Arabs got along much better than European and Jews, so the Conflict can hardly be considered as a mere product of a phenomenon that hardly existed before the foundation of Israel (Note : Zionism never saw itself as a colonization movement in a European sense). Therefore if the KISS principle ( Keep It Simple , Stupid) is applied and the conflict is confined to a strict political , national and territorial arena, expelling external “noises” both sides might be able to find a practical solution , a “second best” solution much faster .
As I said in the beginning, there is still hope that both people are able to advance with the process before it gets too late. History shows that it is possible, but we should not forget that “Time is money” especially in its special local meaning ( in Hebrew the word DAM or DAMIM means “Blood” but also “Money”).
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
European Lessons for the Middle East ( Part I)
The following images does not require any excessive imagination: Take 1 : An American President appears from his office surrounded by Middle East leaders. Take 2 : The President announces a new set of initiatives/steps/programs/etc aimed to revive the “Peace Process” … sounds familiar? Déjà vu? That was more or less the way the ceremony in Washington DC looked a week ago, a sort of show which became an obligatory ritual for the last 20 year. The irony is that the spectacle itself is the clearest evidence of its own futility, or better put a sad recognition that the last 20 years have yielded much more “Process” than “Peace”.
Palestinians and Israelis don´t need confirmations from Washington DC, reality talks for itself . First of all the “Process” failed to prevent the loss of thousands of human lives . Secondly the irresolution, the tactical and astute maneuvers only derived into a generalized frustration and despair that catalyzed an augmented “Entrenchment” mood at both sides : Among the Palestinians an Islamic (and radical) discourse is eclipsing the former secular dominant sector of the Palestinian national movement: The takeover of the Gaza strip , the results of last elections are the clearest evidence of that process. From the other side, Israeli secular Jews became more receptive of a “Two States Solution”, a softer talk that turned to be the ultimate perfect alibi for a rather hard line policy : The Israeli Jewish society ( 75% of the population) is nowadays more supportive of collective punishments (such as the Gaza blockade), a general indifference of collateral damages, support the inclusion of preconditions to the Palestinian , etc. . Not exactly the best recipe for a good neighborhood. On the top of it the actual government is dominated by right wing parties that are against any real concession.
The historical narratives of both sides apparently support the intransigent strategies: Arabs are sure that their ancestors´ power of will as the main motive for the expulsion of the Crusades invaders from Palestine some 800 years. And they want to repeat it. In a similar fashion, Israelis are convinced that Israel owes its existence mainly to the determination and sacrifice of its founders. Since the debate “Resistance vs. Compromise” is too wide for a modest blog I will only comment that any serious strategy, even the most intransigent must weigh the consequences of the worst case scenario. Reminder: Some 2000 years ago Jews tried to defy the Roman Empire twice ( 66 and 132 AD)and in both cases the messianic hard line strategy ended in a colossal catastrophe, 2,000 years exile included. Palestinians don’t need to go so back: The intransigent position toward Zionism combined with a lack of political astuteness brought upon them the Nakbah, the loss of Palestine and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people from their home.
History has plenty of human collectives that learnt the lesson of blind inflexibility on their own (literal) flesh , and generally a bit late. Take the example of Europe: The peaceful and prosperous continent was during hundred of years the stage of the cruelest wars. Even the XX Century bloodsheds of Sedan and Verdun were not more than a prelude for the 1918 vengeance, the seeds of the next disaster. “Civilized” Europe needed the “lesson” of Auschwitz, Dresden, the Blitz, Hiroshima, Stalingrad, and more than 50 millions casualties to engage in a serious alternative path in order to end with the vicious cycle of violence . The EU, the Euro,common market etc. are not economic or political enterprises but a mechanism to prevent future catastrophes. For the time being the lesson is present.
So, after wandering to Europe and XX century history, what is the punch line in relation to the “Peace Process”? Well, I guess that Bismarck´s quote says it all: “Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." Since there is more than enough experience of others, the moment for a smart attitude (and Bismarck was VERY smart) has come to the Middle East. Since everybody knows what is the merchandise, what is the price, and what is the deal , the possible gains of hard line strategies or astute tactical maneuvers are insignificant when compared to the risk of possible REALLY bad experiences . In other words, more “Peace” and less “Process” is needed , as the Middle East and its peoples don´t have another 20 years to spend in empty speeches.
Palestinians and Israelis don´t need confirmations from Washington DC, reality talks for itself . First of all the “Process” failed to prevent the loss of thousands of human lives . Secondly the irresolution, the tactical and astute maneuvers only derived into a generalized frustration and despair that catalyzed an augmented “Entrenchment” mood at both sides : Among the Palestinians an Islamic (and radical) discourse is eclipsing the former secular dominant sector of the Palestinian national movement: The takeover of the Gaza strip , the results of last elections are the clearest evidence of that process. From the other side, Israeli secular Jews became more receptive of a “Two States Solution”, a softer talk that turned to be the ultimate perfect alibi for a rather hard line policy : The Israeli Jewish society ( 75% of the population) is nowadays more supportive of collective punishments (such as the Gaza blockade), a general indifference of collateral damages, support the inclusion of preconditions to the Palestinian , etc. . Not exactly the best recipe for a good neighborhood. On the top of it the actual government is dominated by right wing parties that are against any real concession.
The historical narratives of both sides apparently support the intransigent strategies: Arabs are sure that their ancestors´ power of will as the main motive for the expulsion of the Crusades invaders from Palestine some 800 years. And they want to repeat it. In a similar fashion, Israelis are convinced that Israel owes its existence mainly to the determination and sacrifice of its founders. Since the debate “Resistance vs. Compromise” is too wide for a modest blog I will only comment that any serious strategy, even the most intransigent must weigh the consequences of the worst case scenario. Reminder: Some 2000 years ago Jews tried to defy the Roman Empire twice ( 66 and 132 AD)and in both cases the messianic hard line strategy ended in a colossal catastrophe, 2,000 years exile included. Palestinians don’t need to go so back: The intransigent position toward Zionism combined with a lack of political astuteness brought upon them the Nakbah, the loss of Palestine and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people from their home.
History has plenty of human collectives that learnt the lesson of blind inflexibility on their own (literal) flesh , and generally a bit late. Take the example of Europe: The peaceful and prosperous continent was during hundred of years the stage of the cruelest wars. Even the XX Century bloodsheds of Sedan and Verdun were not more than a prelude for the 1918 vengeance, the seeds of the next disaster. “Civilized” Europe needed the “lesson” of Auschwitz, Dresden, the Blitz, Hiroshima, Stalingrad, and more than 50 millions casualties to engage in a serious alternative path in order to end with the vicious cycle of violence . The EU, the Euro,common market etc. are not economic or political enterprises but a mechanism to prevent future catastrophes. For the time being the lesson is present.
So, after wandering to Europe and XX century history, what is the punch line in relation to the “Peace Process”? Well, I guess that Bismarck´s quote says it all: “Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." Since there is more than enough experience of others, the moment for a smart attitude (and Bismarck was VERY smart) has come to the Middle East. Since everybody knows what is the merchandise, what is the price, and what is the deal , the possible gains of hard line strategies or astute tactical maneuvers are insignificant when compared to the risk of possible REALLY bad experiences . In other words, more “Peace” and less “Process” is needed , as the Middle East and its peoples don´t have another 20 years to spend in empty speeches.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tell Me That It Isn´t True!
A volunteer or two are required to answer a few questions: The first one, not very serious. The second question a bit more serious. The third and last question , I do not expect any answer … we´ll leave it as food for thought.
First Question: What is the common denominator of the following items?
…Sage, Cardamom, Coriander, Ginger, Jam, Halva, Vinegar, Nutmeg, Chocolate, Fruit Preserves, Seeds And Nuts, Biscuits And Sweets, Potato Chips, Gas For Soft Drinks, Dried Fruit, Fresh Meats, Plaster, Tar, Wood, Cement, Iron, Glucose, Industrial Salt, Plastic/Glass/Metal, Containers, Industrial Margarine, Tarpaulin, Sheets, Fabric( For Clothing), Flavor And Smell Enhancers, Fishing Rods ,Fishing Nets ,Buoys, Ropes, Nylon, Netting For Greenhouses, Hatcheries And Spare Parts For Hatcheries, Spare Parts For Tractors, Dairies For Cowsheds, Irrigation Pipe Systems ,Planter,(For Saplings), Heaters, Musical Instruments ,Size A4 Paper,(Letter/Legal, Size), Writing Implements, Notebooks, Toys, Razors, Sewing Machines, Horses, Donkeys, Goats, Cattle, Chicks….
Shopping list? An annual control of inventories? Not even close ….It’s a partial list of the items Israel does not allow to enter into Gaza strip. Moreover, the list includes “just” products absolutely banned though we should bear in mind that rigorous quantitative restrictions are imposed on many other products as well (such as fuel for Energy Plants that limits the electricity supply to a few hours per day … etc). The objective of those restrictions is to prevent the rearmament of the Hamas militia ( Halva???) and a consequent possible threat on the wellbeing and security of Israeli citizens along the Southern border. Since Israel and Egypt control all the official accesses to the strip, the meaning of these restrictions is obvious (The list was prepared by Gisha organization)
Second question: Can anybody tell me that it isn’t´ true? (as far as I know the Israeli Army or Ministry of Defense did not confirm nor deny the list) . I am serious and would appreciate a elucidatory answer.
If the above list turns to be genuine, even partially, a Third question rises, a question that I don´t even dare to answer: Has someone gone mad out there in Israel?. Please tell me that it isn´t true.
For the time being I rest my case.
First Question: What is the common denominator of the following items?
…Sage, Cardamom, Coriander, Ginger, Jam, Halva, Vinegar, Nutmeg, Chocolate, Fruit Preserves, Seeds And Nuts, Biscuits And Sweets, Potato Chips, Gas For Soft Drinks, Dried Fruit, Fresh Meats, Plaster, Tar, Wood, Cement, Iron, Glucose, Industrial Salt, Plastic/Glass/Metal, Containers, Industrial Margarine, Tarpaulin, Sheets, Fabric( For Clothing), Flavor And Smell Enhancers, Fishing Rods ,Fishing Nets ,Buoys, Ropes, Nylon, Netting For Greenhouses, Hatcheries And Spare Parts For Hatcheries, Spare Parts For Tractors, Dairies For Cowsheds, Irrigation Pipe Systems ,Planter,(For Saplings), Heaters, Musical Instruments ,Size A4 Paper,(Letter/Legal, Size), Writing Implements, Notebooks, Toys, Razors, Sewing Machines, Horses, Donkeys, Goats, Cattle, Chicks….
Shopping list? An annual control of inventories? Not even close ….It’s a partial list of the items Israel does not allow to enter into Gaza strip. Moreover, the list includes “just” products absolutely banned though we should bear in mind that rigorous quantitative restrictions are imposed on many other products as well (such as fuel for Energy Plants that limits the electricity supply to a few hours per day … etc). The objective of those restrictions is to prevent the rearmament of the Hamas militia ( Halva???) and a consequent possible threat on the wellbeing and security of Israeli citizens along the Southern border. Since Israel and Egypt control all the official accesses to the strip, the meaning of these restrictions is obvious (The list was prepared by Gisha organization)
Second question: Can anybody tell me that it isn’t´ true? (as far as I know the Israeli Army or Ministry of Defense did not confirm nor deny the list) . I am serious and would appreciate a elucidatory answer.
If the above list turns to be genuine, even partially, a Third question rises, a question that I don´t even dare to answer: Has someone gone mad out there in Israel?. Please tell me that it isn´t true.
For the time being I rest my case.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Show Must Go On
The Israeli government has recently decided to “temporally freeze” any new construction in the settlements in the Occupied Territories. The Israeli press praised the decision labeling it as a brave concession toward the Palestinians done by a right wing Government. Is it a real step forward for Peace ? Or alternatively should we consider that decsion as another needless chapter in the drama we have being watching for decades in the Mid East?.
Lets face it from the outset: The Israeli Palestinian conflict does not lie behind freezing permits for new balconies or schools , THE issue is the vast israeli colonization on Palestinians lands during more than 3 decades . The “Strategic” objective of such a colonization process is self evident: To obstruct the viability of any possible Palestinian sovereignty thus ensuring the Israeli control of these territories. The "security" argument is more than questionable as the security of the State of Israel was never based upon isolated settlements in the midst of Arab population. The outcome is a 42 years old Israeli occupation (with a nuance since the creation of the PNA) and the denial of human civil and political rights from millions of human beings. Therefore , any temporal freeze does not deal with any real issue and should be considered as an empty gesture. Nevertheless, that sort of development fits perfectly the key players short term strategies in the play. Lets see how that decision serves them .
Actual US President is a Master of gestures and speeches. Since the unprecedented decision is the outcome of US administration pressures, it can be considered as a political victory . This observation is partially right as it fails to recognize the fact that as long as core issues remained unsolved, hard liners got another break to “buy time” to create more obstacles for a reasonable solution. These sorts of empty gestures could be sufficient to receive the Noble Prize .....but in real life they are irrelevant.
Prime Minister Netanyahu fits into the tragic character of the play : the man who must face his destiny , forced to choose between political pragmatism and his lifetime beliefs (Israeli sovereignty on Eretz Israel). Recent media spinoffs confirm that description about the endless dilemma PM went through before having that decision.
The settlers are supposed to play trouble makers. Their expected resistance to any freezing will be the evidence that any change in the Status Quo or real concession in the future might bring to heavy internal conflicts in Israel. That behavior will put the Israeli Government under a more positive light as it dares to confront hard liners.
Israeli Left will maintain its ambigious position toward the conflict: The Israeli “generosity” is expected to become, once again, the perfect alibi for the Israeli “Left” to remain under the (Hard Line) consensus toward Palestinians. That consensus could also includes any future possible violent (even disproportionate) Israeli response to any hostility from the Palestinians.
Extremist Palestinians: The limited achievement cannot satisfy hard liners and in certain way not even more pragmatist factions. As a matter of fact, more than 15 years of Oslo process and negotiation with Israel achieved too little for the palestinian people . If palestinians feel that this is all they can get throigh negotiations they can be tempted to go back to the hostilities field.
It seems that the anonymous script writer insists on maintaining that horrible tragedy with no real happy end in sight and that sort of temporal freezing is another evidence of the short sight persepctive of the main players. We should alway rememeber that real life theater is a bit different : The real players which bear the burden of their leaders failures are the Israeli and Palestinians . There are no spectators but very real players.
Lets face it from the outset: The Israeli Palestinian conflict does not lie behind freezing permits for new balconies or schools , THE issue is the vast israeli colonization on Palestinians lands during more than 3 decades . The “Strategic” objective of such a colonization process is self evident: To obstruct the viability of any possible Palestinian sovereignty thus ensuring the Israeli control of these territories. The "security" argument is more than questionable as the security of the State of Israel was never based upon isolated settlements in the midst of Arab population. The outcome is a 42 years old Israeli occupation (with a nuance since the creation of the PNA) and the denial of human civil and political rights from millions of human beings. Therefore , any temporal freeze does not deal with any real issue and should be considered as an empty gesture. Nevertheless, that sort of development fits perfectly the key players short term strategies in the play. Lets see how that decision serves them .
Actual US President is a Master of gestures and speeches. Since the unprecedented decision is the outcome of US administration pressures, it can be considered as a political victory . This observation is partially right as it fails to recognize the fact that as long as core issues remained unsolved, hard liners got another break to “buy time” to create more obstacles for a reasonable solution. These sorts of empty gestures could be sufficient to receive the Noble Prize .....but in real life they are irrelevant.
Prime Minister Netanyahu fits into the tragic character of the play : the man who must face his destiny , forced to choose between political pragmatism and his lifetime beliefs (Israeli sovereignty on Eretz Israel). Recent media spinoffs confirm that description about the endless dilemma PM went through before having that decision.
The settlers are supposed to play trouble makers. Their expected resistance to any freezing will be the evidence that any change in the Status Quo or real concession in the future might bring to heavy internal conflicts in Israel. That behavior will put the Israeli Government under a more positive light as it dares to confront hard liners.
Israeli Left will maintain its ambigious position toward the conflict: The Israeli “generosity” is expected to become, once again, the perfect alibi for the Israeli “Left” to remain under the (Hard Line) consensus toward Palestinians. That consensus could also includes any future possible violent (even disproportionate) Israeli response to any hostility from the Palestinians.
Extremist Palestinians: The limited achievement cannot satisfy hard liners and in certain way not even more pragmatist factions. As a matter of fact, more than 15 years of Oslo process and negotiation with Israel achieved too little for the palestinian people . If palestinians feel that this is all they can get throigh negotiations they can be tempted to go back to the hostilities field.
It seems that the anonymous script writer insists on maintaining that horrible tragedy with no real happy end in sight and that sort of temporal freezing is another evidence of the short sight persepctive of the main players. We should alway rememeber that real life theater is a bit different : The real players which bear the burden of their leaders failures are the Israeli and Palestinians . There are no spectators but very real players.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Lieberman and Israel do not cry anymore
This week
Lieberman's party main message is “No citizenship without loyalty”," No rights without duties”. From the outset these requirements sound logical: After all, every state confines the right of citizenship according to its dominating values or interests. But Lieberman's message is not destined for aspiring Israelis (an option practically available only to immigrants Jews) but to actual Israeli citizens, a newspeak terminology which leaves many questions unanswered: How can you measure loyalty? Who will decide what loyalty is? In addition , we know from recent history that Afro American were denied for decades to exercise their Civil Rights in USA by requesting arbitrary criterion (such as reading tests, etc.) thereby circumventing formal equality.
I guess that Lieberman will not require hundreds of thousands of Israelis carrying a foreign Passport (
Arab "brotherhood" is rather limited (as have been demonstrated in the last war in
Other claim that
From a Jewish perspective the loyalty test is rather dangerous beyond its unmoral aspects. Jews were accused along history for "double loyalty", bearing the harshest and tragic consequences for these unfounded accusations. Will someone dare to question the loyalty of top Jewish politicians in the Western countries (US, France just to mention a few)?
Many people will claim that the comparison is inadequate: Jews were never really tied to "enemies" as Arab Israelis are linked to the Arab world. Historically, this argument is flawed: for example, in WWI Jews actually fought in all armies, Allies and Axis as well (the division even went through the Zionist movement .Just for an illustration young Ben Gurion - was enlisted to the British Army and M. Sharet - the future PM - was an officer in the Turkish army).
The most amazing aspect of Lieberman rise is the crippling acceptance of his ideas and the ambiguous response from the main parties, which penlights the long run erosion of basic democratic and human values. Twenty years ago Rabi Kahane and his Kakh movement were banned from participating in the elections for their explicit call for a massive transfer of Arab citizens from
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)