How to Contain Hamas

Often, the rhetoric of Middle East Peacemaking gets bogged down in idealism. What is needed is not idealism, but pragmatism. Most people want peace. Those who don't, don't deserve to be factored into the equation. On a pragmatic level however, it is the warmakers, and not the peacemakers, who are most important to a long and lasting peace.

Hamas, which does not wants peace and seeks the destruction of Israel, is the one with the guns, bombs and rockets, who not only controls internal Gaza infrastructure, but also is the one with the power to prevent peace. The Israeli army does want peace in the abstract, though the degree of that desire can be debated. If provoked however, it will not hesitate to act, thus continuing the "cycle of violence".

With the USSR, the key strategy was containment. Legal and economic sanctions, good intelligence (which history has later on proved may have not been so good) and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction kept a cold peace between the two super-powers. The USSR however, was essentially a rational government. Hamas does not care about the death, either of its own members or of its civilians. They are all martyrs who must be sacrificed for the goal of destroying Israel.

So what is to be done? First of all, the world must refuse to talk to Hamas and must cut off all of its financial resources. It must predicate acceptance of Hamas not upon acceptance of Israel, but upon willingness to adhere completely (no rockets) to a temporary cease-fire, along with a free press internationally monitered by a committee comprising of a Palestinian, an Israeli, and American, and a an EU representative. The UN has proved itself too corrupt to be trusted. Israel should offer conditional working cards to Gaza residents. The condition? Proving that one is not a Hamas member. Proving this could be difficult, but a signed revocation of Hamas, along with a personal reference, should suffice. Hamas has long gained support by running soup kitchens. Getting food meant loyalty to Hamas. Now it is time to force people to choose between food and Hamas, while also giving Palestinians a chance to work in Israel. Instead of bombarding Gaza from the sky, Israel should simply engage in targetted assasinations of Hamas leaders, both in Gaza and elsewhere. (though not in the West Bank, out of defference to Fatah) These targetted assasinations sometimes result in civilian casualties, but would result in less civilian casualties than the current air-bombings.

Furthermore, Israel must work hand-in-hand with Fatah to make the West Bank a desirable place to live that all Gazans will be jealous of. Providing jobs for Palestinians, and helping to start Palestinian businessess for Fatah supporters within the West Bank through small, low-interest loans, while helping Palestinians with no records of anti-Israel activity and no membership to militant groups to both attend Israeli university and to obtain jobs within Israel is a start. Israeli agricultural experts should work with Fatah experts to help them utilize the West Bank's natural resources. Israeli and Palestinian economists should help Fatah to engage in a healthy economic plan that allows it to provide vital social services. Economic success in the West Bank, besides weakening Hamas, also encourages peace. People with dignity and food in their stomachs are less likely to want to become suicide bombers. The pscyhological effect of poverty can not be under-estimated. Furthermore, if one looks at global conflict, it tends to center around extremely poor areas and can be seen as resource competition (in a land war, please keep in mind that land is a resource that can produce food) or extremely rich areas where greedy governments each want the wealth for themselves.

Mahmoud Abbas should be personally invited to dine with Shimon Peres, not as a politician, but as his personal guest. This is to prove good faith to Palestinians and show Hamas supporters that while Hamas can get nowhere with Israel, Fatah engages Israel to help its own people and commands Israeli respect. Furthermore, all Fatah prisoners without blood on their hands who were not caught in the process of trying to bloody their hands should be released, which snubs Hamas and shows Palestinians with loved ones in jail that it is Fatah, not Hamas, who will get those loved ones home. Checkpoints within the West Bank should be decreased, making life easier for everyday Palestinians. But checkpoints between the West Bank and Israel should be heightened in security, and become almost like border crossings, in order to ensure that no dangerous extremists are making it into Israel. There should be more soldiers per checkpoint, to lessen the burden of each individual soldier. The checkpoint soldiers should be given special sensitivity training, special perks, and monthly therapy sessions in order to deal with the trauma of working at a checkpoint. Right now, checkpoint soldiers are the most neglected. Furthermore, since they come in to face to face contact with Palestinians daily, checkpoint soldiers are in a powerful position to influence the sentiments of individual Palestinians towards Israel and Israelis.

There may be time later to argue about who has justice on their side, whether actions were provocations and responses were disproprotionate, and what exactly the borders of Palestine should be. Right now, the key issue is to contain Hamas and try to obtain peaceful conditions, so that later on permanent-status negotiations occur in a peaceful atmosphere. Because all residents of Israel and Palestine deserve to live in peace. The sooner we can help them acheive that peace, the better. Politics be damned.

Obam v Mccain Ohio Speeches

Ok, so a summary/analysis of the two speeches:

Mccain:

1. Attacks Obama (cites inexperience)

2. Claims Obama wants to redistribute wealth while he wants to spread it. Note: What exactly is the difference between the two, besides semantics?

3. Says the past 8 years have not worked economically speaking and accuses Obama of wanting to raise gov spending, but does not mention that by wanting to continue the war in Iraq, Mccain wants to continue one of the biggest expenses on our government's budget

4. Talks about his war veteran-hood

5. Speaks about cutting business taxes to stimulate economy. By business taxes, he means corporate taxes. Low corporate taxes are part of what led to the Great Depression.

6. Says he won't spend 750 billion to bail out Wallstreet, despite the fact that he was for the 750 billion bailout plan

7. Speaks about oil-drilling in Alaska as a solution to both high oil prices and energy dependence, despite experts' agreeing that drilling would take at least 5-10 years before it would have any effect, and that effect would be minimal

8. Mccain believes in this country while Obama does not. Mccain will fight for it as he has in the past. Mccain also implies voting for Obama would make America less safe.

Obama:

1. Professes faith in American people and gratitude to them for getting him this far

2. Says the crisis is bad and shows that the trickle-down theory of the past 8 years has failed

3. Says Mccain has "served this country honorably" and commends him for standing up to Pres. Bush on torture. Says however, that he has voted for all Bush tax cuts and agreed w Bush on economy and that even now "Senator Mccain has still not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently than President Bush when it comes to the economy" This mixing of legitimate criticism with praise shows him to be more of a gentleman than Mccain, who merely attacked Obama vs Obama who attacks a specific position of Mccains, not Mccain himself, and even praised the man

3. Obama speaks about how Mccain has been attacking him and calling him names in order to win but it is time to show that those tactics do not work

4. He says America has had difficult times before and overcome them. Now we're in a difficult time and we must/can overcome it.

5. He says the gov's job is not to solve everyone's problems, but to "do what we can not do for ourselves". He then talks about America as the land of opportunity, and goes into details about his tax plan, citing exact figures. He talks about a 3000 dollar tax credit to companies for each job created on American soil, as well as job opportunities created by improving infrustructure (roads, bridges, etc. A recent NY Times article cited incredible need to improve infrastructure. Also, this tactic was used by FDR to create jobs during the Great Depression.) He then talks about investing in alternative energy sources. Note: This is more effective in the long term than Mccain's oil drilling, because it is more enviromentally friendly, cuts down energy dependence completely (as opposed to Mccain's plan which just minimizes it) and plans for the day when oil will run out/other countries will realize it is running out - and come running to whoever has the technology to replace oil with other energy sources. It thus could one day stimulate the economy, not to mention the jobs - both low-skill (physical labour involved in producing these technologies) and high-skill (thinking of the technologies, etc) it provides until that day comes, while strengthening the US's scientific clout in the world.

4. He then speaks about the need to improve education and healthcare. He says that an era of irresponsibility in which we forgot our responsibilities to each other and common sense of purpose led to this economic crisis, and we must renew our common sense of purpose and responsibility to each other in order to get out of it.

5. He then cites his belief in the American people to bring about change and the need to continue to hope. He ends by saying "God bless America". It is interesting that Mccain did not mention God at all, but pegs himself as the more religious candidate in order to get votes.

I am Pro-Life

I am pro-life. I am against the death penalty and unnecessary wars. I also am against unnecessary abortions. But I am pro-choice, as well. I support a woman's right to choose whether or not an abortion is necessary.

Pro-lifers have successfully framed the abortion debate in their own terms. As they croon about the sanctity of life, and how a fetus is a living thing, they have framed the debate as whether or not one is for abortions. But in reality, the debate is about whether or not a woman has a right to abortion, legally, which is something separate entirely. For example, I support women's legal rights to wear spandex mini-skirts. Yet, personally, not only would I not wear one, but every time I see someone wear one, I feel slightly nauseous.

Furthermore, many people who support a woman's right to abort are not in favor of abortion. They simply acknowledge the reality that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. The question is whether they will be done safely in a doctor's office, or dangerously in a closet, using a coat hanger.

Pro-choice people must reframe the abortion debate: It is not about whether or not one supports abortions, but about whether, given that they will happen anyway, one wants those abortions to be safe or to endanger the lives of the women to happen.

To those pro-lifers I ask: Are your principles of sanctity of the life of a fetus worthy endangering girls? If so, would you be willing to look into the eyes of a frightened fifteen-year old's family at the funeral and tell them that? If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then maybe it's time to acknowledge that it is possible to be pro-life and opposed to abortion while in favor of a woman's legal right to abort.

Thoughts on Akko

1. While religion (an Arab driving in a Jewish neighborhood on Yom Kippur) was used to ignite the riots, it is really nationalism and inter-ethnic tension that caused it. Religion was a pretense.

2. Both Jews and Arabs have acted wrongly in this matter, since both have been involved in the fighting and destruction of people's property.

3. The reasons the Jews started the riot was because they were angered by the Arab driving in the Jewish neighborhood on shabbat. The thought that religious (or in this case, tradtional) Jews have the right to have no cars drive in their neighborhood in shabbat (or in this case, Yom Kippur) has slipped into the national culture from the charedim, who have their neighborhoods closed off to traffic on shabbat, and sometimes throw stones at cars that drive through those streets not closed to traffic. It has been aided by religious enclaves, such as Bney Brak, where the entire city is officially closed to traffic on shabbat, and even by more modern orthodox/religious nationalist yishuvim, where when one agrees to live in the yishuv, one agrees to not violate shabbat. (or at least, not violate shabbat in public) The police's arrest of the Arab man who drove through the neighborhood only reinforces the notion that the Jews have a right to have no one, not even a non-Jew, drive in their streets on sacred days.

Instead, the government should be reinforcing the idea that non-Jews and non-religious Jews do have the right to drive where they wish on shabbat and holidays, provided the street they drive on is not officially closed off to traffic. Should Jewish religious residents have a problem with this, the proper thing is to ask for the street to be closed off, not to throw stones at drivers. Throwing stones will not be tolerated. The arrest of the Arab driver is particularly discouraging because he did not brake a law by driving there, and he has apologized for doing so, and expressed a desire for coexistence.

4. This problem was caused by Israel's mistreatment both of Sefardi Jews and of Israeli Arabs. Sefardi Jews faced discrimination for a long time, and while this discrimination is diminishing, the fact is that many Sefardi Jews are on the lower end of the socioeonomic spectrum, and this is because climbing out of the hole dug by discrimination takes time, even after the discrimination has ended. (In this sense, they are somewhat similar to African-Americans, who faced discrimination until recently. Now, even though that discrimination has, for the most part, ended, and the number of African Americans in the middle and upper classes has been steadily  increasing for the past ten years, many African Americans still find themselves born into poorer homes or crime-ridden neighborhoods with bad schools as part of the lingering after-effects of 200 years of discrimination. For Sefardim, the era of discrimination is much shorter, but the concept is the same.)

Israeli Arabs, while equal under the law, still face much unofficial discrimination. No real effort has been made to absorb them into the Israeli economic system, and most are lower class. When two different lower class ethnic groups are put into a small area and forced to live together, it takes nothing but a small spark to ignite tensions between them. This can be seen from race riots in the US, which were usually between working class whites and working class blacks. Underlying the riots is the issue of economic competition when two groups of people are each lacking material wealth, with each group being jealous (at least subconciously) of the others' possessions.

Using racial and ethnic tensions is an excellent way for the capitalist enterprise to deflect proletariat hatred of the bourgeois onto fellow proletariats, who are defined as "the other", the enemy, based on ethnicity. This ethnic division distracts the proletariat from what they have in common: their working class lifestyle, and that they are both being unfairly used by the capitalist system. By disuniting the proletariat, the system ensures there is no proletariat revolution. This is not a conscious decision on behalf of the bourgeois elite, but a natural consequence of the capitalist system. In an era of material wealth, in which the proletariat is disconnected from his material possessions, never feeling the full right to them because he has been so divorced from their material production, (for producing something earns the right to said thing; man is meant to eat the fruits of his labor, and eating the fruits of someone else's labour, without offering something of one's own labor in return, goes against the natural order of things. Money is not a tangible fruit of ones own labour, but a poor substitute, a piece of paper certifying that one has worked - in the case of the bourgeios, this work is not physical and tangible, but intellectual and not physically substantive. Thus the feeling of ownership of ones labour, as well as the feeling of earning something for that labour, is obscured: the labour is not real, and the payoff is a piece of paper whose production one has no part in.) one focuses on other things to make life seem meaningful. These things can be as trivial as an aesthetic sensibility and philosophy of fashion, in which couture is transformed into high art. They can also be as spiritual as religion. This bourgeois value mutates as it trickles down to the proletariat, but it is nonetheless absorbed by them in some form. In the United States, where the upper class idolizes fashion, lower-class people have begun buying cheap "designer" clothing, like Isaac Mizrahi for Target, and name their children names such as "Gucci".

In this case, the unique political situation gave rise to a focus on ethnicity. This focus was exacerbated by an extremist religious nationalist yeshiva that opened recently. It distributed leaflets saying that Arabs are sons of dogs, and tried to boycott Arab businesses. That such a stream of thought is found among the religious nationalist camp is disturbing. In this case, given the close proximity of Jews and Arabs, it provided the match that would be lit by a car driving in a Jewish neighborhood on the Day of Atonement - an ironic day for a riot to start. A day that perhaps showed how much there is to atone for.

Sending police in might quell the riots, but in order to ensure similar riots don't happen in the future, whether in Akko or in other cities, is to absorb Sefardim, Arabs and other minorities into the economic framework, to help them to move up on the socioeconomic scale and to encourage them to go to university. Such a challenge is daunting, especially given the current economic climate - but in order to ensure peaceful coexistence, one must first ensurethe  sustainable, respectable existence of each group.

The Enviroment

Obama is has a more complex solution to environmental problems than Mccain. (For more info, please refer to the NY Times article.) This should be a reason to vote for him.

Why is environment important?

1. Long term well being of the planet, ensuring future generations of people don't die due to global warming, toxic substances in the air and water from polution, and lack of oxygen when trees run out, etc.

2. Foreign policy - It is easier to be pro-Israel when not in need of Arab states' oil. As oil decreases, oil prices should steadily rise, meaning we're pouring more money into failing Middle East regimes. Even if one is not pro-Israel, one must admit that the USA can have a more objective and self-serving Middle East policy without those financial ties.

3. Economy - As oil prices go up, the amount being spent on oil is money that could be spent on other sectors of the economy, and it is money going abroad, that could be spent at home. Furthermore, when we find efficient, oil-free ways to do things, this brings costs of production down, lowering the prices of products, so we can buy more goods. This means more stores are open and more people have jobs. (The research to find that efficient source of energy could be expensive; Obama proposes tax breaks for research and governmental exploration of nuclear power. This would mean tax-payers are paying for part of the research, but most of that money would be coming from higher corporate tax rates and from those earning over of a quarter of a million a year. Besides which, the long term cost benefit is worth it. It is possible that in order to cover the cost of research, or that, in the less advanced non-oil energy phases, product prices would raise slightly, but this raise would be comparable to the raise if oil were used, and would be beneficial in the long term, since once prices were lower they will stay constantly lower - unlike with oil-dependent production, where product prices fluctuate with the prices of oil.) 

Furthermore, as other countries become increasingly frustrated with oil prices, they will be willing to buy cost-efficient technologies that replace oil, and the country with such technology will profit.

Anti-Palin Rant

Palin has been playing quite dirty against Obama. "He's not American like you and me" - given the color of his skin, his Muslim sounding-name, and his African father, I do wonder if such a comment hints of racism, religious discrimination, and xenophobia.

But, leaving that aside, let's move forward to when Palin, whose husband thinks Alaska should secede from the USA, complained that Obama is unpatriotic and "pals around with terrorists". Now, serving on a board that is meant to improve education, in a purely professional capacity, all of a sudden has come to mean "palling around with".  In that case, I must be BFF with all of the pretensious people as well as the drunk frat/sorority people I go to class with. I mean, I do spend 3 hours a week with them - and guess what? While I might be able to tell you some of their opinions on genocide or Islamic art, I don't know most of them on a personal level, at all. Of course, this can not describe Obama's relationship with Ayers - Ayers did hold a small political fundraiser for him when he began running for senate - but then again, in Chicago, Ayers has recast his image as an education reformer and professor at a state-funded university. Obama can hardly be called anti-America for attending a fundraiser by a man employed by the American government. Besides which, one small political fundraiser does not equal BFF status, as Palin suggest.

Moving on: Upon hearing this horrible revelation, one of the Palin supporters shouted "Let's kill him!" Palin's reaction" Nada.

The minute Palin did not react to that very audible comment  by explaining the need for law, and for respecting people who you disagree with, and how different voices comprise democracy, etc., she did a few things:

1. She mocked her "pro-life" label.

2. She failed to defend democracy.

3. By not defending rule of law, she also failed to defend the political system she is supposed to be elected in order to defend and enact. In doing so, she was anti-American. Because loving America also means loving the American system of government, with its democracy and rule of law and voice for dissenting opinions. Letting a "let's kill him" comment go by violates that love.

4. She proved herself to be a dishonorable and immoral human being, who is ruthless and radical. Killing is radical. Not opposing voices crying for killing is also radical, and counts as passive  incitement.

5. She proved herself to be a racist. Crying for killing of a white man is inhumane. But when a group of white people is standing there listening to someone saying,, "Let's kill a black man", (which is what was happening since the "him" in that sentence was undeniably black, from a historical racial categorical standpoint) then it conjures up images of Southern lynch mobs. And if you don't stand up to the lynch mob, if you are standing on a podium and hear the lynching called for and say nothing to stop it, than you too, are a racist. That's exactly what happened at the Palin rally.

Obam v Mccain Debate: Some thoughts

I seem to have inadvertently deleted my belated debate notes in the process of saving them, so here goes my off-the-cuff blog post: Confession: I didn't actually watch the debates (no tv) but I did read the transcripts. A few points:

1. Mccain proposes the government's buying up housing mortages while cutting taxes. Where will the money come from? The last thing we need is a bigger deficit. He also proposes stemming the tides of globalization and stopping (or at least, radically changing) our business relationship with China. Most economists agree this is impossible/would severely harm the American economy.

2. Warren Buffet, multimillionare, supports Obama and is Obama's pick for treasury dept. sec. If he has confidence in Obama's tax plans, maybe we should consider those plans work.

3. Mccain often avoids questions, choosing instead to castigate Obama for (what he claims to be) mistakes made in connection to those questions.

4. When asked about Russia, Mccain proposed "moral support" to countries intimidated by Russia. Obama proposed moral support - accompanied by practical solutions.

5. Most of Mccain's tax cuts go to corporations. (note: low corporate tax rates were part of what led to the Great Depression.) Mccain voted for 4 out of 5 Bush budgets.

6. Obama would raise taxes, but only for those earning over a quarter of a million dollars. People earning less than that (ie most Americans) would either pay the same taxes or pay less. (depending on a variety of circumstances)

7. Mccain claimed he would find Osama bin Laden. He claimed he knew how to do so. Yet he criticized Obama for "talking big" when Obama said that, while we should give more nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, we should predicate it upon Pakistan's aiding us in finding terrorists and taliban, including within their own borders. Should Osama be clearly within reach, and Pakistan refuse to go after him, we should go after him ourselves. According to Mccain this means Obama said "he would invade Pakistan." Hardly. A targeted assassination in a remote hypothetical situation does not an invasion make.

8. Obama wants to decrease troops in Iraq and increase in Afghanistan while working with local leaders and minimizing corruption within the Afghani government, and cracking down on the drug (opium) trade which benefits the Taliban. Mccain simply wants a surge in Afghanistan - without taking troops out of Iraq. Hello over-stretched military. (not to mention over-stretched government budget.)

9. Obama called America "the greatest nation on earth". He also pointed out that historically, no nation has maintained military superiority while facing economic decline. This is an important point, especially since the war in Iraq is indirectly (if not directly) related to our economic decline. Getting out of Iraq would prevent our government deficit from ballooning, while enabling us to not over-stretch our troops. It would help our economy by giving our government more money to spend on healthcare and education. (link: you spend less on healthcare. you either invest the extra money, or put it in banks, or buy a new dress. no matter what, the economy benefits. education and economy - that should be self-evident.)

10. Mccain likes to point out how Obama was wrong about the surge, one aspect of the war. He fails to mention that Obama was right about the war as a whole, and voted against it. Mccain was wrong about the war as a whole, and voted for it.

11. Obama proposed military sanctions on Iran, especially when it comes to oil. (Iran currently imports oil, due to bad management of their own natural resources.) He also vowed not to take the military option off the table. Mccain provided harsh platitudes against Iran without concrete steps of how to prevent Iran from gaining WMDs. Instead, he preferred to criticize Obama for his willingness to talk to Iran.

12. Genocide prevention - Mccain was wishy-washy, but pointed to how he had effectively predicted that deploying marines to Lebanon under Reagan would be a failure. Obama, citing the Holocaust and Rwanda as examples, cited the need to prevent genocide. He proposed giving non-military or indirect military aid to African peacekeepers in Darfur, which is something concrete that does not endanger the lives of US soldiers. (He detailed the exact types of support, though, without my notes, I can't.)

13. People point to Mccain's experience as  Vietnam War Vet as positive. I wonder if perhaps it is not negative: While parallels can be seen between the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq, the two are still different wars in different eras. Viewing the War in Iraq with so much personal baggage, perhaps feeling we need to win in Iraq the way we couldn't in Vietnam, is something negative, and an obstacle Mccain may need to overcome in order to view the war in Iraq objectively. While every person and president has their own biases and life experiences that they bring to the table, this is one personal bias that Obama does not have to overcome in order to see the war in Iraq objectively. That being said, I don't think being a war vet should be held against Mccain - I just think the negatives neutralize the positives, making his veteran-hood a non-factor in deciding who to vote for.

Mccain and Palin: A Love Story

Mccain nominated Palin. Forgive me for not dancing and beating happy percussion rythyms onto the covers of my Judith Butler and Betty Friedan books. The appointing of a woman as VP candidate might be...wait for it...anti-Feminist.

Mccain appointed Palin to pander to Clintonians. This means he thinks the women who supported Hillary would vote for a candidate whose views are the polar opposite of her own, merely because it would put a woman in the white house, albeit as VP - in other words, in the administrative assistant position, as a glorified secretary who looks pretty in front of the cameras. For Mccain's assumption to be true, either: 1. Hillary supporters only supported Hillary because she's a woman, not because of her policies or 2. Women who supported Obama will vote for Mccain because they'd rather see a woman as VP than see a man whose policies they support as president. Neither of those options implies a high opinion of women.

Furthermore, Palin has no international affairs experience and is mired in scandal. If he wanted to appoint a woman, couldn't he find a qualified woman? Did he even bother looking, or did her consider the mere fact that she had a vagina to be enough? Perhaps a vagina and a working brain are too much to ask for in one human body?

Speaking of vaginas...Palin has five kids, and Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Her daughter will not get an abortion and mill marry the father. How sweet and Juno-esque. How pro-choice. The daughter sinned, but will bear the consequences of her actions. She will be united with the father in holy Christian matrimony. So Mccain is using Palin, a woman, to attack women's rights: The right to abortion, and the right to have a baby with, and love, a man, without marrying him. The Nazis used Jewish stars to identify Jews so that they could abuse and eventually kill them. I am not comparing the Republicans to Nazis in their aims, but in their methods: the use of a symbol of a certain group to persecute that group.

As a woman, I do not want Palin to be my symbol. She stands up and talks about breaking glass ceilings. She has become a symbol of women's liberation. But she is not a symbol of my liberation: she is a symbol of a party and a platform that seeks to take away my basic liberties.

Of course, the danger of Palin's daughter being an example of pro-choice in action, is that in the eyes of many social conservatives, her daughter's pregnancy might be evidence of Palin's failure as a mother. Even Obama, the pro-choice candidate, agrees on the need to cut the number of undesired pregnancies. Of course, there are stories of mothers of accidental children who will say how much they love their babies, and how they are happy after the fact. But after the fact, the choice becomes: You have a reality. Be happy with it or be sad - and, for survival and emotional well-being's sakes, how many people choose to be sad? In other words, after the fact, your choice is limited to how you feel about the fact. But I want women to have the choice of what they want the fact to be.

I want to see a woman in the white house, but a woman who gets there through intelligence and talent, not through anatomy. I want a woman whose policies dictate that I vote for her regardless of gender. In other words, I want a woman who gets there by her brain, and not by her vagina.

Election Thoughts

It's been a while. I had to remind myself that blogging, despite its informal veneer, is a form of commitment. The C word has been a lot on my mind lately...and not just because many of my friends have been tying the knot.

America is about to commit to a new president for the next four years. Will he be Obama or Mccain? Both candidates seem to get about half the votes in polls, with them alternating between who has more and who less on a weekly basis. How kind of them to take turns.

But while I can not predict the future, I would like to share a few thoughts - or rather, counter-points to the arguments people often give me when they find out I support Obama.

1. "Don't you mean Osama?" I don't know where to start - by correcting the misconception that Obama is a Muslim (He is in fact, a Christian - hence the reverend Wright scandal, hello!) or by pointing out that, since America has separation of Church and State, a candidate's religion should not matter. What matters is whether or not a candidate's religion will influence his presidential decisions - something that seems more likely in Mccain's case. The ultimate candidate should not allow their faith to dictate their politics, thus, their faith should be irrelevant.

2. His plans are fiscally unstable....Mccain wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and low corporate tax rates that contributed to (but are by no means the sole cause of) the current recession. Neither Obama's nor Mccain's plans are perfect, but: Obama's plans actually help the middle class, while Mccain's do not. Also, a bigger deficit - ie, keeping the Bush tax cuts, means the US is borrowing money from other countries. Right now, our dollar is worth what it is because China invests in it. Should China sell its shares in the dollar tomorrow, our green bills would become toilet paper. Will China sell its shares? No. Should the world's fastest-growing economic superpower as well as supporter of regimes that violate human rights, have the type of power where it can blackmail America? No. How can the US expect any country to take it seriously when it is in so much debt? Imagine you lent me a million dollars, and then I told you to stop cursing your wife or ELSE. You would laugh at me. Obama's plans won't solve all the problems, but neither will Mccain's. The difference between the two is that Obama's helps people who desperately need help, while Mccain's doesn't.

3. Obama's aiming too high....true. No politician accomplishes all of their goals. You aim for 100 bills, and between fillibusters and political pandering, 50 are passed. Mccain is aiming for less, so he will achieve less.

4. Obama is running on his personality...Given the reality of media coverage today, personality has come to play an important role in politics. Obama and Mccain are each doing what they think they have to do to get elected - but throughout the campaign, including at the DNC, Obama stressed respect for Mccain as a person, while Mccain has issued ads, such as the infamous celebrity ad, specifically aimed at attacking Obama as a person. So which candidate is trying to use personality as political weapon?

5. He's inexperienced...First of all, Obama has shown himself willing to listen to educated advisors of different opinions. This will give him an educated and multi-faceted view of the issues facing our country. Abraham Lincoln was inexperienced, but he was one of the greatest presidents. Second of all, Joe Biden.

6. Obama is anti-Israel. His voting record, his words, and his VP choice all disprove that.

7. But I supported Hillary...Supporting Hillary means doing what she said in her speech: Voting for Obama. Also, if you believe in Hillary's policies, Obama's resemble those much more than Mccain's.

8. What do you really know about him? 1. His voting record for the past 4 years 2. His biography, his political philosophy, and the policies he advocates  - which is pretty much all I need to know 3. Between the unknown candidate and the candidate I know I disagree with, I'll take the unknown. The concept of a "dark-horse candidate" exists for a reason.

9. I'm usually a Democrat, but don't like Obama. If you're usually a Democrat, can you honestly tell me Obama's worse than Mccain? Policy-wise, no. So that leaves personality...but I thought what you hated about Obama was he buys in to the cult of personality that surrounds him...also, if you're white, are you sure this is not sub-conscious racism that's been socialized into you by society?

Are We Living in a Post-Zionist Era?

This is a question often voiced. I am not sure it has an answer - Zionism, like Judaism, is rather hard to define. If we define it as  the belief in the right of the Jews to a state of their own, than Zionism is as outdated as Americanism is after the American Revolution, or Frenchism is after the French Revolution. I would like to define this type of Zionism as political Zionism and argue that it is indeed outdated.

But political Zionism is not the only type of Zionism. There are: Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Cultural Zionism, Religious Zionism.

Labor Zionism has failed, in the sense that the modern day Israel is neither socialist* nor agragarian. Most of the manual labour is done by Arabs. Indeed, from a Labor Zionist perspective, the disconnect between Israelis and the physical land is a tragedy. Thus, one who fights for the modern day Israel to adhere to the original, still unfulfilled vision of Labor Zionism is Labor Zionist. His or her type of Zionist vision is not outdated precisely because it has yet to be fulfilled.

Revisionist Zionism is more nationalistic than Labor Zionism and not oriented towards socialism. It's focus has traditionally been on territorial gain; it wanted both sides of the Jordan river to be incorporated into the Jewish state. It has not been fulfilled per se, but has been incorporated into the mainstream modern religious Zionist movement.

Cultural Zionism envisioned creating a new national Jewish culture. Of all the types of Zionism, this one has failed the most miserably. There is a Jewish religion, but it is not one that most Jews follow. There is Israeli culture, but it is not shared by Jews world-wide. Many Diaspora Jews do not speak Hebrew, without which Israeli culture remains largely inaccessible. The two main aspects of nationhood are a shared history and a shared culture. Jewish history has not been shared ever since the beginning of the exile 2000 years ago, but it does have one common element: No matter what region of the world Jews lived in, it is almost definite that at some point some anti-Semitic event happened there. As for Jewish culture, that is harder to distinguish. After all, what is culture? Two main elements are religion and language. Religion has been largely abandoned. In order to create a Jewish culture, one must turn to language. If one were to make Hebrew the language of Jews world-wide, they would have succeeded in fulfilling a large part of cultural Zionism. There is a need for cultural Zionists, for the vision of cultural Zionism grows further from fruition as time goes on and Diaspora and Israeli Jewish sub-cultures develop and become more distinct from each other.

Religious Zionism is the belief that resettling the land of Israel and establishing Jewish sovereignity there is the beginning of the redemption and will eventually result in the coming of the Messiah. The movement always emphasized a connection to the land, which is believed to be promised to the Jews by God. After 67, this connection, combined with an intense nationalism reminiscent of Revisionist Zionism, led to Religious Zionism's being closely associated with the Settler Movement. Since the ultimate goal of modern mainstream Religious Zionism is the reclamation of the holy land and the coming of the Messiah, there is always work to be done - in the form of building settlements and doing good deeds that can help speed the Messiah's coming. Religious Zionism remains unfulfilled as long as the Messiah is not here; it is the Messiah's coming that will usher in the post-Zionist era. (Note: There are some left wing Religious Zionists, though they're a minority.)

So are we living in a post-Zionist era? More than I am convinced that the question does not have an answer, I am convinced that it is irrelevant. So why did I just spend a blog post ranting about it?

* It does have strong labor unions and certain socialist elements, but not nearly to the degree envisioned by the founders of Labor Zionism.

An Examination of Olmert's Peace Plan

The PA just rejected Olmert's most recent peace overture, due to "lack of seriousness". The overture was based on a PA takeover of Gaza. The PA, knowing it is weak, chose to reject the offer so it would not have to face its inability to fulfill the conditions of the offer. Still, it's a pity. In a region that needs peace so badly, sacrifice will be needed by all parties. The PA claims it will only accept a plan on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. But, with the land swaps in Olmert's plan, the Palestinian State would have gotten roughly the same area as 1967 borders and Olmert's peace plan did not rule out the Jerusalem capital possibility - it merely left it to be negotiated later. The Palestinians must be willing to compromise as well - is 7% of land really worth not having peace? The PA rejected the plan outright, not even expressing a willingness to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss it. This goes back to my theory that the PA is rejecting the plan to avoid pressure to take out of Gaza, which it knows it is to weak to do. The new plan was brave on the part of Olmert.

Basic summary of the plan: 93% of the West Bank goes to the Palestinians, with some land from the Negev given instead of the remaining 7% of the West Bank. An Israeli-controlled passage between Gaza and the West Bank where Palestinians can pass freely.  Right of Return to Palestine. (not Israel -except in cases where doing so would reunite families) Jerusalem to be negotiated over later.

A couple of points: 1. Yesterday, Queria, from the PA, said that if Israel continued being an obstacle to the two-state solution, the Palestinians would demand a one-state bi-national solution. Today a new peace plan is on the table....coincidence? I have no doubt this plan has been in the works for some time, but Queria played an effective political move and pressured Israel into making another step towards a peaceful 2-state solution.

2. This plan is contingent upon Fatah retaking Gaza. Problems with this: 1. Hamas, though a religious extremist organization that never officially recognized Israel's right to exist, won Western-backed elections. So what does this say - that elections are only legitimate if the right person wins? 2. Is Fatah strong enough to retake Gaza? They seem to have trouble just holding on to the West Bank. Assuming the answer is no, will Israel help Fatah by giving them weapons and training, or was this simply a smart bluff on Olmert's part? This way he - and Israel - were willing to make peace, and it was the PA's weakness that got in the way. Israel comes out looking like the willing peace partner without having to actually give anything up or make peace, since the PA never takes over Gaza.

3. Some might complain about 93% of the West Bank. It would be very difficult to remove people from major settlement blocs, not to mention that it would be creating a new humanitarian crisis of Jewish refugees to solve the humanitarian crisis of Palestinian refugees. Since the Palestinian state will be given land from the Negev, and it's only 7% of the West Bank that's being kept, the plan seems reasonable to me.

4. The free passageway between Gaza and the West Bank, while maintaining a modicum of Israeli control for security purposes, is a good compromise. The complex take on the refugee/right of return issue is also good.

5. It is bad to delay talks about Jerusalem, since peace talks could still fall apart over that, but I understand why Olmert is doing so: Shas, a religious party, threatened to leave his coalition in Israeli Parliament if he put Jerusalem on the negotiating table.

Overall, the bravest peace initiative that's been seen in a while. It took Olmert's knowing that his political career was already over for him to stop worrying about his career and have the cojones to do what he thinks is best for Israel.

More on the Occupation

So, how is the Occupation harming Israeli society? Many ways. There is an organization called "Breaking the Silence" that documents some of them. Arguably, the greatest argument against Occupation is not the pain it inflicts on Palestinians, but the harm it places upon Israeli society by forcing 18 year olds to do immoral actions.

Let's suppose the following: You are taking a group of decent people, 18-21 year olds, and putting them in charge of a civilian population. The group of people in control is bound to abuse their power and commit acts of cruelty, no matter how nice they might be prior to being put into that position of control.

This was proved by the Stanford Prison Experiment: "Normal" Students from Stanford were taken. One group was randomly assigned to be prisoners, while the other group was randomly assigned to be guards. Within days, the guard group was abusing the prisoner group, to the point where they were forcing them to identify themselves by number, (as opposed to name) to sleep without mattresses as punishment, and to undress and perform other acts of humiliation. Anyone familiar with Holocaust history should get a chill while reading that.

The territories are, in a sense, the Stanford Prison Experiment replicated. Take a group of decent 18-21 year olds and put them in control. Take the Palestinian population and make it the prisoner group. The Israeli soldiers are bound to commit atrocities.

I am not a believer in psychological determinism. We are born with psychological tendencies, some positive, some negative, which can be either strengthened or overcome. Nevertheless, I do believe that when talking of a large group of people, ie, Israeli soldiers, it would be unrealistic to expect every single one of them to overcome the basic facet of human nature that turns protector into occupier.

Do we really want Israeli society to be one where people are forced to spend three years of their youth being occupiers? Golda Meir often said that she could forgive the Arabs* for killing Israelis, but not for forcing Israelis to become killers. (This is a paraphrase.) I guess I kind of feel the same way.

Testimony 97, from "Breaking the Silence", former soldier in Hebron, on the Occupation:

"I'd say it corrupts us. I'd say it corrupts them. I'd say we lose in both directions. I'd ask people to put this on their agenda, to ask and learn and find out what goes on there....to tune in, to understand that for our society, even on the most selfish grounds, this is one of our worst ills, the severest of them all for Israeli society,  for the people, the state,  the economy, society, education. One of our worst ills."

* I don't mean to generalize, but I believe Golda Meir used the word "Arabs", as opposed to, say, "enemies of Israel", or, "a group of extremists from within the Palestinian population".

How to Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

1. Ask yourself: Is this action moral when committed in a vaacum?

2. Examine the reasons behind the action: Do the ends justify the means?

3. What can be done to alleviate the problems that were the reasons behind the action?

4. Is there a more moral way to accomplish the ends, or was the means used the only means that could be effective?

5. Examine the history of the issues at hand - don't rely only on the article in the news that day.

6. Hope for peace.

The Occupation Paradox

This article sums up the Occupation Paradox better than I ever could. I'd be interested in hearing and replying to comments.

Hatred

"Today might be the last day. We might go out of the clock, into eternity - so let's catch a place, steal ourselves a dream before we wake up. There's no time under the sun for fights and wars. There's no time under the sun to wait. 

This might be the last song, the last words, of an awful poet. I hate to part, am afraid of the meeting with Someone unknown. There's no time under the sun for fights and wars. There's no time under the sun to wait." - Aviv Gefen, "Ein Zman Tachat Hashemesh"

I would like to follow up that rambling with a post that will hopefully be more coherent:

Hatred is destructive to the character of a nation. Arguably, hatred is one of the biggest challenges that both Israel and the Palestinian people face. It is easy and understandable to hate a Palestinian after a terror attack - but it is not justified. It is also easy to hate Israelis after military operations in the West Bank and Gaza - but it is not justified. (I do not mean to imply moral equivalency between the two: terror attacks are infinitely worse in intent.)

Most Israelis who I've encountered want peace. Nevertheless, the trend of Arab-hatred (and I say Arab, and not Palestinian, for a reason) among Israeli settlers is unsettling. (pardon the pathetic pun) The scary thing about the trend is it is slowly extending to those Orthodox Israelis who, while they do not live in settlements, espouse a settler-messianic religious-political outlook. There has recently been either a rise in settler violence against Palestinians or the reporting on such violence, depending on one's opinions. At the same time, Adalah, an organization that defends the rights of Israeli-Arabs in Israel, reports a rise in acts of discrimination.

I have not had much meaningful interaction with Palestinians. I would like to assume however, that most want peace. Some might call this naive. The fact remains however, that the two main groups fighting for Palestinian independence, Fatah and Hamas, are enshrined in hatred. This is dangerous to the Palestinian national movement. Hatred blinds one and prevents one from seeking compromises and peaceful ways to accomplish one's objectives. One of the reasons Israel came into being is that Israel's leaders, who were not blinded by hatred, were willing to accept the UN partition plan despite its granting them less land than they wanted. In order to create peace and gain independence, it may be in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to follow Israel's example and accept less land than they want - and to give up on the right of return, something Israel will never accept - or to at least amend their demand to "right of compensation/reparations".

Furthermore, the mixing of religion and politics in Hamas is dangerous.  Separation of religion and government is essential to forming a healthy democracy - something that is in the best interest of all Palestinians. 

The Israeli government must do more to combat the Arab-hatred of settlers - and the Palestinian people must demand more pragmatism from their leaders. Ultimately, hatred is most dangerous not in the effect it has on the hated, but in the effect it has on the haters.

Project David Thoughts

So, I figure I should try to do this blogging thing with some regularity. This is kind of hard, since for the past 5 days I've been in Boston at Project David, an Israel advocacy seminar. At the seminar, I had some interesting and thought provoking discussions on the topic of Hasbara, which means explanation in Hebrew.* Is it ethical to manipulate people to believe in your views - not by lying to them, but simply by only including the facts that serve your cause? The answer is no. Does it become ethical when you know that the other side is doing the same? Perhaps, if you can assume that whoever is reading your distorted facts is also reading the other side's distorted facts and will be able to figure out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You can never really assume that though, so the second question becomes irrelevant.

This became an issue at Project David - it's goal is to educate people about the Israeli-Arab (as opposed to Israeli-Palestinian) conflict. Being a pro-Israel organization however, it only represented the pro-Israel side. Is this a problem, since the project does not hide the fact that it is pro-Israel? Furthermore, they had a subtle right-wing bias - is it ethical of them to claim they are apolitical (beyond supporting Israel's right to exist) when that bias exists?

Many would claim that spinning facts is an inevitable part of politics. In a sense, winning elections is about spinning facts to make it look like your vision of the future is the right one, supported by history, and that the choices you've made have been proven right by time. But politics are inherently unethical. Maybe that's why there's so much corruption across the world. People who choose to enter politics must be people willing to violate ethics in order to achieve power - if not, they know they will not succeed. Until we change the nature of politics in current democracies (or, more often the case, democratic republics) we will not see a change in the selfishness of our politicians. But would such a change help - or is what we need a change in the nature of man and his quest for power - and is a change in nature be possible?

No country is perfect. The best way to advocate for Israel is to tell the truth about Israel - both the good and the bad. The best hasbara is to change the realities inside Israel so that one does not feel pressure to omit certain facts in order to advocate successfully. (Note: This is not a call to Americans to meddle in Israeli politics. One Talansky is more than enough.) I would argue this not only from an ethical standpoint, but even from a practical pragmatic standpoint:

1. If you make Israel seem perfect, you lose credibility. People realize one thing you imply (perfection) must be false, so they don't believe the other things you say.

2. Better people hear the facts that make Israel look bad from the mouth of someone who loves Israel, is knowledgeable, and can explain the complexity of the situation, than from the mouth of someone who hates it or is simply ignorant or both.

* Let me take this opportunity to plug Hebrew as a rich language with excellent literature that is worth studying. It is impossible to understand a culture without understanding the language, so one can't understand Israel without speaking Hebrew. One can't understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without speak Hebrew and Arabic - which is why I really want to learn Arabic. (I know basic words like shukran and khaif-halek, etc.) Also, Arabic poetry sounds really pretty. 

Separation of Synagogue and State

Separation of Church and State is considered an essential characteristic of the modern democratic nation. Here are a few thoughts on separation of synagogue and state in Israel:

1. Yeshayahu Liebowitz was in favor of the separation - he believed that mixing religion and politics was unhealthy, and tended to corrupt religion. This has proven true; rabbinic courts are corrupt - if not financially, then at least they're corrupt religiously - they rule in favor of the status quo and in order to enhance their own power. A good example is the reluctance of the rabbinic courts to use their powers to help agunot - the rabbis have no desire to change the status quo and its patriarchal values.

2. When politics and religion mix, the non-religious start resenting the religious. Many secular Israelis are especially upset about the control the rabbinic courts have on marriage and divorce issues. This resentment contributes to the rift between the religious and non-religious.

3. A problem with complete separation of synagogue and state: If the separation is complete, then what makes Israel a Jewish state? This question comes from thinking of Judaism as a religion, but Zionism is not concerned with Judaism, but with Jewishness - and Jewishness is defined as belonging to the Jewish nation. So, while Israel should separate between religion and state, it should not separate between culture of the Jewish nation and state.

What is that culture? For thousands of years, Jews have celebrated shabbat, rosh hashana, yom kippur, etc - those are national Jewish days of rest and celebration, and so should be the state days of rest and celebration.  Public schools should provide adequate Jewish education: Jewish history, the Bible which has shaped Jewish culture, and the rabbinic laws - which, whether one observes them or not, are a major part of Jewish culture by virtue of the fact that they were observed by our ancestors for thousands of years. Bios of famous rabbis should be included in Jewish history. Students must be taught about the historical and biblical relationship between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. They must also be instilled with the Jewish values that are part of our culture: charity, loving-kindness, not oppressing the stranger, etc. These values are essential to a successful society. Part of having a Jewish state is expressing those values in government policies. A government that ignores the poor is, in my opinion not a Jewish government - because Jewish culture has always considered it important to help the poor, probably because of the influence biblical passages about charity had on the culture, and because the exile existence forced Jews to take care of their own - the local governments were often not merely apathetic, but actually hostile, to the Jewish community.

If one defines a Jewish state as a state where the majority of citizens are Jews, placed upon the traditional Jewish homeland, that has a unique Jewish national culture, then the complete separation of Judaism and state, with the complete integration of Jewishness and state, is the way to go. This definition is more in keeping with secular Zionism than religious Zionism, but I believe it could have positive benefits for the religious Zionist movement. It would lessen the Orthodox/non-Orthodox rift, lessen people's resentment towards the Jewish religion, and possibly encourage them to adopt cultural practices that often overlap with religious practices simply because the Jewish culture is so strongly influenced by the Jewish religion.

The power of the Sinai experience is that the Jews voluntarily accepted the Torah by saying "We will do and we will listen". Trying to force religion on people negates the power of their religious acts - the Orthodox community should let each Jew stand at their own metaphoric Sinai, with the freedom of choice to say those words. Ultimately, the Sinai covenant is about choice: the choice to accept the national covenant thousands of years ago, the choice to do right or wrong - it is choice that makes the mitzvot meaningful. To paraphrase Maimonides: If people didn't have freedom of choice, then why would God bother giving them commandments, or enacting a system of justice, with reward and punishment? For the sake of the Jewish religion, the religious establishment should stop trying to force people into being religious. 

Barack Obama and the media hype

2 things came to my attention today: 1. Barack Obama's  prayer-note in the Western Wall was removed and published by some opportunistic American who was there for his gap year. 2. The New York Times refused to publish an op-ed by John Mcain about the Iraq war, which was a rebuttal to an op-ed by Obama published in the Times a while ago.

Both of these things point towards the same phenomena: Media-hype about Barack, and forgetting that politicians are human.

As a human being, Barack Obama was entitled to leave a personal prayer-note between him and God. Removing the note violated his human right to privacy. (as well as a bunch of other ethics and Jewish commandments - rabbis condemned the removal of the note.)

The fact that the note's removal was on CNN international, as well as all over a variety of media, especially news web-sites, demonstrates how obsessed with Obama the media is.

Not publishing the op-ed by Mcain, after publishing an op-ed by Obama, shows bias by the Times. Providing news reports is a public and civic service essential the fiber of a healthy democracy. As such, the Times is obligated to show all sides of the story. It doesn't matter whether the op-ed by Mcain was good or bad. What matters is that once they gave the democratic candidate the right to speak, they are obligated to give the republican candidate the opportunity to do the same.

The Times' pro-Obama bias is counterproductive. People will wonder what it says about Obama if his supporters feel the need to hijack the media in order for him to win. If he truly is the stronger candidate, then shouldn't the simple, unbiased truth, with him and Mcain having equal air-time, be enough to convince us he's the better candidate?

Furthermore, if Obama wins in what many feel was a case of mass-mis-information due to media bias, he will not have the popular support necessary to enact true change in the white house - and change is what Obama is all about.

Our country desperately needs change. It would be a pity if, at the beginning of his term, grumbling about a brain-washing and stolen election aided by the media deprived the next president of the power to enact the platform on which he was elected.

To get true change in the white house, first we need to change how the media is reporting the race to the white house.

Yitzhar: Settlements

"I have no other country, even when my land is burning. Just one word in Hebrew sharpens my heart, my soul." - Ehud Manor, courtesy of my friend Y.

A recent bout of clashes between police and settlers in Yitzhar, near Hebron, is once again shrouded in confusion. Who picked up the gun, and why? Apparently, a man who happened to be there that day - and he fired into the air. Did Palestinians throw stones at the settlers? Depends on which news source you read.

But the Yitzhar incident points towards a new trend: The radicalization of settlers, the political radicalization of Orthodox Israelis, the willingness of the radicals to raise their hands against IDF soldiers and police if they disagree with the political action being carried out by the soldiers and police.

This situation could lead to civil war in case of large scale evacuation. While the fear of civil war was highly overplayed by the media before the Gaza evacuation, the evacuation itself, as well as the treatment of the settlers after the evacuation, has angered the settler movement and further radicalized them.

A few arguments, from the Orthodox right-wing perspective, against absolute dedication to holding on to settlements:

1. According to Jewish belief, the temple was destroyed, and the Jews exiled, as punishment for the Jews' inability to get along with each other - sinat chinam. Raising arms against other Jews, even if they be the limbs, and not metal weapons, is a clear manifestation of the negative value that led to our nations' exile once - and could lead to it again.

2. Most settlers are Orthodox, and most Orthodox support the settlements. Unfortunately, many Israeli non-Orthodox internalize "most" as "all". The settlement movement is increasing non-Orthodox animosity towards Orthodox Jews - and towards Orthodox Judaism itself. Doing something that causes fellow Jews to look down on religious Judaism is a chilul Hashem - a desecration of God's name. This animosity is increased when settlers' perceived animosity towards the IDF is factored into the equation.

3. Maybe the violence and peace process are signs God wants us to give up the land. But how can I know the will of God? None of us can. So saying its God's will for us to keep the land, at all costs, is just as ridiculous as saying its His will to give it up. The Bible does not address the specifics of modern day Israel, and drawing legal analogies from thousands of years ago to today is hard. Drawing values however, from an ancient holy document is easier. One of those values is love of the land of Israel. Another value is loving your fellow human like yourself, and loving the people of Israel, even when you don't agree with their actions. The height of love for the nation of Israel is Moshe praying for them after the sins of the golden calf and the sin of the spies.

4. Demographically, Israel can't keep the settlements without becoming a racist state. The number of Palestinians in the West Bank continues to sky-rocket, and Jewish birth rates just can't keep up. Barring some sort of mass aliyah, which could be imminent if Mashiach comes today, Israel would eventually find itself with autonomy over a non-citizen population nearly as large as its citizen population. This would be a physical burden on the army, as well as a moral burden - both within Israeli society and abroad.

The fact is, there's no credible Palestinian leadership at the moment. The fact also is, the settlers have limited political capital. The movement should prioritize which settlements it wants to convince the Israeli government to keep. It should push for unilateral withdrawal, with massive benefits for displaced settlers, and cut a deal so that the withdrawal is accompanied by Israeli annexation of major settlement blocs surrounding Jerusalem. Furthermore, if it is ethical to kick out Jewish Israelis with compensation, it should be ethical to kick out Palestinians, assuming they're offered exactly the same compensation as the Jewish settlers. Using this moral equation, Israel could kick the Palestinians out of Bethlehem and Hebron, the two disputed holy cities - but that option could prove economically and militarily impossible.

It is important to understand that the mass displacement of settlers will cause a humanitarian crisis. Jews abroad and governments who favor settlement evacuation should create a fund to aid settlers post-evacuation. The Israeli government can not afford to provide proper compensation to the displaced settlers without outside help.

The picture I've presented above is not a pretty one. People against settlements must recognize that mass evacuation of people from their homes is a tragedy, no matter what the reason for that evacuation. This recognition of the legitimate pain felt by the settlers could help ease the road of reconciliation. Just as settlers must do more not to alienate themselves from general Israeli society, general Israeli society must try to understand the plight of the evicted settler - and that the settler does what he does because of a love of Israel. That is something that he and the Peace Now protester might have in common - and soccer, of course. Because who doesn't love a good game of real futbol?

Bulldozer Attack

"We Jew have developed an attitude of looking down on physical labour...but labour...is the basic energy for the creation of national culture...we seem to think...it does not matter- let Ivan John or Mustafa do the work while we busy ourselves with producing a culture, with creating national values and with enthroning absolute justice in the world...I think that everyone of us ought to retreat for a moment into his innermost self, free himself from all outside influences -both from those of the gentile world and even from the influence of our own Jewish past -and ask himself with the utmost simplicity, seriousness and honesty: What, essentially, is the purpose of our national movement?"

AD Gordon, writing in the early 1900s, already understood that the link between physical labour and ideology would play a key role in Israel's destiny. Given the recent bulldozer attack in Jerusalem, the second in a month, the interplay between the two has become even more important.

First of all, the fact that most construction workers are Arabs reflects a truth about Israeli society many of us are not comfortable with: While officially Israeli Arabs have full rights, much discrimination exists. Arabs, whether Israeli or Palestinian, tend to be at the lower end of the socio-economic scale and have blue collar jobs. (For some context: Israeli Arabs are more proportionally represented both in the Knesset and in Israeli universities than African-Americans and Latinos/as are represented in both Congress and American universities.)

Given that fact however, the question becomes: How can Israel prevent future construction attacks from happening, while not depriving the innocent Arab construction workers of their livelihood?

Some would argue this question is irrelevant. The Arabs brought it upon themselves. If they are so against terror, let them protest the terrorist attacks. Let them take to the streets of E. Jerusalem. There are plenty of unemployed Jews who could use the jobs that would be created by the vacancies left when the Arabs are fired. Point taken, but, given aside my moral discomfort with stereotyping, I believe that such insensitivity would be harmful to Israel.

First of all, let's think of one of the basic definitions of a Jewish state: A state that encapsulates Jewish values. Judaism has many values, and here two of its major values contradict each other: The importance of human life (after all, from a security point of view, not hiring Arabs is a fool-proof way of preventing bull-dozer attacks) verse the importance of not oppressing the stranger, loving ones fellow human as oneself, and recognizing the tzelem Elokim - the godliness inherent in each individual, regardless of religion, race or nationality. If the terrorists force us to violate Jewish values in the struggle for self-preservation, then they have won not only a moral victory, but also an anti-Zionist victory: They have forced us to act directly against the Zionist vision.

Second of all, while unofficial discrimination of all sorts exists in most human society, once there is an officially discriminatory policy, whether in hiring Arabs for construction, or in any other sector, then what was formerly a dangerous societal trend now becomes official government apartheid, making a country liable for sanctions and all sorts of international punishment - punishment that Israel is barely avoiding as it is.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is in Israel's best interest to have an Israeli Arab population that loves Israel. This is because Israeli Arabs have power at the polls, they move around relatively freely in Israel and could be of great use in planning terror attacks and transporting weapons, and also, the less people in Israel with access to weapons who hate Israel, the better. Basically, to quote Lincoln: "A house divided among itself can not stand." Enacting discriminatory hiring practices will anger the Israeli Arab population and further the rift between them and the Israeli Jewish population.

How does Israel stop this rift? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Better and more equitable spending on social services for areas with heavy Arab populations, like E. Jerusalem.

2. Bettering the Israeli Arab schools, while providing Zionist education aimed at making Arabs that they too, have an important role to play and are wanted in the Jewish state.

3. Job initiatives for young unemployed Arab men - young unemployed men is the demographic group most prone to violence.

4. Dialogue between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. Partnering of Arab and Jewish schools to engage in bi-weekly or monthly inter-student dialogue about the future of the state.

People often focus on the security threats to Israel from without - Iran, Hezbollah, etc. But it is time to start focusing on the threat from within - the bulldozer attack should serve as a wake-up call, that we have Arabs in this country, and failing to  learn how to make them part of of our society could prove fatal. If we treat Israeli Arabs like the other, then they will act like the other.

That being said, there is no justification for terror attacks. Other groups, such as African-Americans in the US, when confronted with unfair treatment, have risen in non-violent protest and succeeded. India rose up against the militarily supreme British in a non-violent manner, thanks to Ghandi. The Palestinian liberation movement seems to have skipped that step, and gone from nothing to terrorism. Personal problems are also not excuses for terrorism. Many people have terrible lives, but don't resort to killing others. Terrorism is never justified. To quote Ghandi, "The bomb-throwers have discredited the cause of freedom, in whose name they threw the bombs."

A final note on the Jews-need-jobs argument for not hiring Arabs: The way to give Jews jobs is to strengthen the economy and start addressing the fact that the income disparity in Israel has been widening. Poverty is not fought by taking jobs away from one group of people and giving them to the other. Poverty is fought by creating a better economy that has jobs for everyone. One of the main things that Israel must do is better its elementary and high-school systems, and help retrain adults in blue-collar sectors so that they can seek new jobs and new career paths. In these retraining programs, bread-winners of families must be given priority.

Intro

After perusing too many papers and news websites, I decided to start this blog. I hope it will be a place to discuss certain current events, societal trends, and newspaper articles that interest me. It may occasionally touch upon Israel. So, a few notes on that topic by way of introduction:

I support Israel's right to exist. I make no apology for this, just as I do not apologize for my support of the USA's right to exist, or India's right to exist. Support of a country's right to exist does not equal support of that country's policies. Indeed, I have many problems with policies of the current Israeli and American governments. I don't know enough about India's government to comment, though I'm sure that if I did enough research I'd find something to disapprove of.

I've often been told that because I never served in the army, I have no right to comment on Israel's domestic and foreign policies. As a human being however, I have the right to comment on the behavior of any country. I do not however, have the right to enforce my opinion by voting. Israel is not exempt from this rule merely because it has compulsory military service.

 As a Jew, I arguably have an extra right to comment on Israel's policies, since it is a "Jewish State". The question then becomes: Given that Israel is a Jewish state, what are my obligations to it as a Jew, and what are its obligations to me as a Jew? I am not sure there is an answer to that question, but I do think it is one worth pondering.

In any event, I shall comment on events in Israel as I see fit, while keeping that question in mind. Perhaps this blog will help me find an answer.