Voting in Israel: Easier and more Democratic than in the US

Ayman Odeh, the head of the joint Arab listing voting on Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Today, for the first time in over twenty years, I had the privilege of voting in an Israeli election. Though in many ways Israel still suffers from the bureaucracy of decades of socialist government, I have to say that voting here was SO MUCH EASIER and MORE DEMOCRATIC than voting in the US.

Heres why:

1) You don't have to register to vote. Instead you get a small note sent to you in the mail that tells you where your polling place is located.

2) If you lose the note, you just have to go to your polling place and show a picture ID (e.g. Identity Card and Passport).

3) There is a festive atmosphere at the polling stations. Lots of kids come with their parents. People are outside campaigning. You can take photographs and it is all very laid back.

4) There are no computers or hanging chads. Instead there are little notes with the names of the different political parties. You pick a note, put it in an envelope and then place that in the ballot box. There is no room for error here.

5) Most polling places are within a 10 minute walk of your home. There are 11,000 polling places in this tiny country. Pretty much every school and government preschool is a polling place.

6) ITS A NATIONAL HOLIDAY - You have no excuse not to vote.

7) If you happen to be registered at your parents and are a student in another city, you can ride the buses and trains FOR FREE on election day so that you have no excuse not to vote.

8) Instead of only two political parties to choose from, you have a plethora of parties from the far-right to the far-left, parties that are community based (Arab, Religious) and parties that are issue based (e.g. the Pirate Party). There is even a party that is running on a platform of free marijuana available for anyone who votes for them.

Now that's change that I can believe in!

The Song and Poetry of Lea Goldberg

The word "Shir" in Hebrew does not distinguish between "song" and "poem." As such, it is not surprising that many of Israel's greatest poets have had their poems put to music. To put this into perspective, it would be akin to taking the poems of T.S. Lawrence, e e cummings, Robert Frost and Sylvia Plath to music.

Few poets have influenced Israeli culture as much as Lea Goldberg. Though she grew up in Kaunas, Lithuania in the interwar years speaking Yiddish, Russian and Lithuanian, she was determined from an early age to be a Hebrew author and poet. Her poetry is riveting, colorful, expressive, and dazzlingly beautiful and it is a double pleasure to be able to hear the lyricism of her songs put to music.

The first poem I want to share is called "At Telkhi BaSade" (You Will Walk in the Field) and it is sung by Hava Albershtein - Israel's answer to Barbara Streisand. The poem was originally written in 1943, at the height of World War II and was called "Haomnam?" (Is it true). Goldberg wrote it to prove that even in terrible times it was possible and desirable to write lyrical poetry so that, "We not lose sight of the meaning and worth of life." There is a lesson here for all of us in these increasingly dark days.

Here is a translation of the poem into English:

"Is it true – will there ever come days of forgiveness and mercy?
And you’ll walk in the field, and it will be an innocent’s walk.
And your feet on the medick’s small leaves will be gently caressing,
And sweet will be stings, when you’re stung by the rye’s broken stalks!

And the drizzle will catch you in pounding raindrops’ folly
On your shoulders, your breast and your neck, while your mind will be clean,
You will walk the wet field, and the silence will fill you –
As does light in a dark cloud’s rim

And you’ll breathe in the furrow in breaths calm and even,
And the pond’s golden mirror will show you the Sun up above,
And once more all the things will be simple, and present, and living,
And once more you will love – yes, you will, yes, once more you will love!

You will walk. All alone. Never hurt by the blazing inferno
Of the fires on the roads fed by horrors too awful to stand,
And in your heart of hearts you’ll be able to humbly surrender,
In the way of the weeds, in the way of free men.

Cropoganda

On February 24, Israeli troops entered Dheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem to arrest a Palestinian terrorist. During the ensuing street clashes, Jihad al-Jafari was shot and killed. If you accept the Israeli version of the story, al-Jafari was the "leader of the rioters" and was fired upon only after a soldier was physically injured and the others felt endangered by incendiary devices and cinder blocks which were being thrown down at them from the rooftops.

Al Jazeera, which provided the above photograph, does not deny that Jihad was on the roof when he was shot, but claims that he was asleep at the time of the raid and only went up to the roof when he heard a commotion in the street below. The only evidence for this assertion appears to be from an interview given by Jibreen al-Bakari, the Palestinian Authority Governor for the area to the Voice of Palestine.  According to a local resident, al-Jafari "was a very nice person. The soldiers had no reason to kill him. He was innocent. A simple, lovely kid."

While I find it hard to believe that al-Jaafari was so naive as to be unaware that the rooftops of the refugee camps are the meurtrières of the modern age, he does, indeed, look like just a kid in the article's accompanying photograph.

Or does he? Here is the uncropped photo:

Obviously, the above photo plays havoc with the narrative that the journalists at Al Jazeera present. The editorial decision to crop the photo should seriously call into question their "reporting."

Yet, perhaps the worst offender was the New York Times. While the Times article briefly presents the Israeli version of events early on in the article, the rest is dedicated to the unverified Palestinian claims that al-Jafari sleeepwalked his way onto the roof. Even worse, the Times gives voice to the unsubstantiated claim that, "Israeli snipers immediately opened fire and shot him in cold blood."

In almost the same breath, the Times reporter Isabel Kershner, proceeds to tie this incident to the withholding of tax revenues and reductions in the electricity supply to the Palestinian Authority. How these events are interconnected remains unclear, but the reporting definitely smacks of an attempt at what social scientists call "contextualization" - a "big picture" approach that attempts to situate events into a broader context.

In those cases where causal links can be demonstrated, contextualization can be an important corrective to simplistic or reductionist explanations. On the other hand, where causality cannot be demonstrated or is assumed, it can be misused to dispense with agency (i.e. free will) by citing supposed underlying causes. In this case, Kershner elicits sympathy for the predicament that Palestinians find themselves in while tacitly absolving them of any responsibility for their actions.

At the same time, Israeli actions are simply presented as a given. They exist in a contextual vacuum and the article makes no attempt to uncover or disclose why the Israeli army chose to "raid" the camp in the first place.

Worst of all, even though the Times undoubtedly had acccess to the above photo, it's editors chose to crop it out all together. In his writings, Foucault called this the "administration of silence" or the other side of discourse that serves to delimit it. It certainly seems like the editors at the Times chose to completely crop out the photo lest its readers try to form their own opinions about Jihad.

Gone Missing: The American Anthropological Association

Who knows, maybe now my anthropology peers will speak out? The American Anthropological Association (AAA) had literally nothing to say about the targetting of Yazidis - a small and endangered culture threatened with genocide - but jumped into action and quickly released a statement when the Tomb of the Prophet Jonah was razed in Mosul, Iraq.

The AAA has also had nothing to say about Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Sinai,  Bahrain, Lebanon, Somalia, Crimea, Boko Haram or the Islamic State in the past few years, but they have recently put together a "Task Force"(!) on "Israel and Palestine." Apparently, "the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine is of great relevance to the AAA."

The AAA's mission statement informs us that, "A central concern of anthropologists is the application of knowledge to the solution of human problems." I guess the fact that nothing has been said about any of the aforementioned places and organizations comes to teach us that everything is copacetic.

UPDATE: As I expected, the AAA has released a communique decrying the destruction at the Mosul museum (http://www.aaanet.org/issues/press/upload/150228-AAA-Statement-on-Cultural-Destruction-in-Iraq.pdf). It just goes to show you that they are capable of getting organized quickly when necessary and that nothing will rile the artsy-fartsy crowd as much as the destruction of a statue. Again, I ask, "Where were you AAA when Yazidis were being slaughtered, when Copts were being butchered, and when Assad was gassing his own people?"

And then anthropologists wonder why they are completely irrelevant when it comes to playing a political decision-making role. 

Senseless Act? Hardly

According to President Obama, what happened today in Paris was a "senseless attack" and an example of "senseless violence." This reaction was hardly surprising. Every time there is a Jihadist attack, the Obama administration issues its standard condemnation of the "senseless act."

In fact, exactly the same language was employed when four Rabbis were killed in cold blood while praying in a synagogue in Jerusalem two months ago and similarly when a British soldier was beheaded on the streets of London last year. This tired phrase was again trotted out this past summer when three Israeli teens were kidnapped and executed and was even used when the US ambassador to Libya was shot dead in Benghazi.

Well, I am here to say that absolutely NONE of these cases were "senseless." Rather, ALL of them were premeditated acts of murder that involved detailed planning and malice aforethought. All of them were motivated by a certain ideological worldview.

To call these acts "senseless" disrespects the Jihadis who have shown again and again that they are a force to be reckoned with and trivializes the extent of the threat that their ideology poses to Western values. The recycling of this same phrase again and again is not only lazy, it is patronising, ethnocentric, contemptuous, elitist, and dangerous.

Will there be Perfidy at the UN Tonight?

Let's see how the US Votes in the UNSC...   TBC

"Objective Science" and its Limitations

The Lancet - perhaps the most politically motivated medical journal in the world has in the past accused the US of killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq, it has accused Israel of a deliberate onslaught against civilians in Gaza while ignoring Hamas rockets, and now acccuses the IMF of aiding and abetting the current Ebola crisis in the most affected countries. In short, it is edited by a bunch of third-worldist progressives who are suffering from serious post-colonial guilt and modern-day Orientalism.

As such, it was both surprising and encouraging to see this comment in a newspaper op-ed:

"We so easily default to a Western-centric view, where it’s our aid or financial policies that are responsible for the success or failure of poor countries. It’s egoistic and exaggerated, and ignores domestic politics."

This just goes to show you that even "objective science" can be hijacked by ideology.

Read the article

Political Hipsterism on Campus

Here's a follow up video from the Berkeley campus about what the students there actually know about the Islamic State. To be honest, this would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that many of these self-same students have strong, unequivocal, and pro-Palestinain positions when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Based on personal experience, I am sorry to say that this is a pretty accurate examplar of the current level of political discourse on American college campuses. By this I mean that everything boils down to one of the following:

1) Strict materialist explanations that verge on determinism (i.e. It's all about the oil).

2) Post-colonial guilt (i.e. It's all really our fault).

3) An extreme cultural relativism that is essentially indistinguishable from apologetics ("Plenty of people lop off heads. Besides, it's really not that bad.")

4) A fetishization of indigineity (to the point of "No True Scotsman" arguments such as the Islamic State is "not really" Islamic.)

Last, but not least, "positions" more often than not boil down to a lazy political hipsterism that do not involve even the minimal investment in time and effort to research a topic (as evidenced by the almost willful ignorance of the Islamic State and what they espouse.)

BBC's "Attack" on Israel

Haya Zissel (Hy"d)

Here is a great example of how the BBC bends over backwards to undermine any sympathy for Israel (Click HERE). It begins with the headline - Jerusalem Car "Attack" Kills Baby at Rail Station.

Considering that there is clear video evidence that the driver swerved on purpose, is a member of Hamas, has served time for terrorist activities before, and attempted to flee the scene, it is hard to understand why "attack" is in quotation marks.

Then in the the article, "terrorist attack" and "terrorism" are in quotation marks, because even attacks on Jewish babies cannot be termed terrorism. At worst, it was an "attack" by a "militant" and at best, this is all because of the Jewish settlements.

The article states that "unconfirmed reports suggest the driver was a Palestinians from East Jerusalem" when this was confirmed hours ago.  His name is Abdelrahman al-Shaludi. I cannot confirm that he is a Palestinian or that he is a Muslim, but use your own judgement.

Then the BBC does what Israel-haters and the Left love to do - they blame this "attack" on the "Cycle of Violence." I think that there is no trope that is more cliched or less true than this.  There is no "Cycle of Violence."  When the three teenage boys were kidnapped and murdered a few months ago, this was not part of a cycle, it was a criminal act and an incitement to violence.  Sure, this may have set off a round of violence, but it was not part of some extra-temporal "cycle" where both sides are equally to blame. In reality, if the Palestinians renounce violence, espouse peace, recognize Jewish rights to this land, and negotiate in good faith then a solution to the conflict can certainly be attained.

If there is any cycle which can be attributed to the conflict, it is the "Grievance Cycle" which is constantly being fed by the media - the one group with a clear and undeniable interest in a neverending conflict  

A Zionism of Inclusion

Captain Elinor Joseph - One of many Arab-Israeli Christians serving in the Israel Defense Forces

Perhaps no national movement has been as maligned or misunderstood as Zionism, the struggle for the self-determination of the Jewish people. In this article, Einat Wilf deftly discusses how the Zionist narrative has changed over time to include disparate groups and the nasecent signs that it continues to broaden its inclusive reach.

 While the section on Muslim inclusion may seem far-fetched, problematic, or overly optimistic at this time, I was heartened a few months back at the outrage of the Israeli-Arab communities in the Wadi Ara/Triangle region when it was suggested that they become part of a future Palestinian state as part of reciprocal land transfers in any final agreement. Even though they have been outspoken and vocal critics of Israel and would not be required to leave their home or lose their lands, it was clear that this was not something that they considered in any way to be a viable option.

In short, given a choice between joining the independent Palestine that they have long been advocating for or staying in a democratic Israel, it became undeniably clear that they much preferred the latter option to the former. Similarly, though they do not say so directly, you can be sure that the vast majority of the Druze in the Golan are thanking their lucky stars that they are not a part of Syria right now.

To read the article, click HERE

No Theolology or Theory Here

In an otherwise cogent BBC article on the Islamic State, I found this nugget:

"In contrast to the first two waves, IS actually stresses violent action over theology and theory, and has produced no repertoire of ideas to sustain and nourish its social base. It is a killing machine powered by blood and iron."

Translation: The self-proclaimed "Islamic" State has nothing whatsoever to do with "Islam". It is just a successful killing machine which has no theology or theory.

While there are no doubt many kinds of Islam - some more radical and some less so, some more peaceful and some less so, the chutzpah to stand on the side and decide that "there is nothing to see here" in terms of theology or theory, is flabbergasting. It seems to matter not that the Islamic State spokesmen have publicly announced that they see their actions (whether beheadings or the establishment of a Caliphate) to be entirely consistent with their strict/literalist interpretation of Islam.  To deny this fact is patronising, privileging of the outsider (i.e. etic), and just plain dumb. It reminds me of all those true believers who, even after 70 plus years of failed Communist regimes in all the corners of the world, saying that the "real" Communism had not yet been tried out. Yeah, right!

To read the entire article click HERE.

Wither Now? [sic]

Tonight as we enter Tisha B’Av and read Lamentations on Judaism’s saddest day of the year, a day when we remember numerous tragedies, the Palestinian factions are in Cairo and about to declare a ceasefire that may finally wind this conflict down. The Israeli army has already unilaterally pulled out of most of Gaza and declared its limited goal of destroying the tunnels and damaging Hamas’s terror infrastructure to be a complete success.  Over thirty attack tunnels leading into Israel and towards Israeli settlements were sealed and hundreds of bomb-making factories throughout the Gaza strip were destroyed. So why do many Israelis feel that we have just made a strategic error of historical proportions? Will this Tisha B’Av, like many before, also be remembered as one that led to our undoing?  How did we get here and what will the next few weeks hold out for us?

America, the Arsonist of the Middle East

I borrowed this headline from Lee Smith (See Here) who, rightly argued that, under this administration, the United States has completely destabilized the entire region. As Victor Davis Hanson points out, “by taking the path of least short term trouble,” we have only ensured “long-term hardship” (See Here). Indeed, you can see this throughout the region as, in case after case, the Obama White House has taken the “easy” road only to bring us now to the brink of disaster. For example, Obama had an opportunity to provide moral leadership and support for the Green Movement in Iran when protestors poured out onto the streets in 2009. The protestors were met with violence by the regime and silence in Washington from an administration that preferred to maintain a “working relationship” with the Imams over regime change. All that has done is buy time for Iran to destabilize the region as they work feverishly to build a nuclear bomb.

Where was this administration when Syria fell into a brutal civil war and death spiral that has pitted all segments of its society against one another?  The US, which, until recently, was talking up Assad (See Here) was nowhere to be found while Iran, Russia and Hizballah have filled this void and propped up the Baathists. Compared to ISIS, which have taken residence in the vacuum caused by the premature departure of US troops from Iraq and the collapse of Syria’s rebels into internecine warfare, even the Butcher of Damascus is beginning to look attractive.  As it has become clear that the US would just watch the region burn from the sidelines, countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia have stepped into the fray with devastating consequences.

Similarly, In Libya, the administration led from behind and then just walked away as the country disintegrated into chaos. Last week the US embassy was evacuated and now tens of thousands of poor migrant workers from India and the Phillipines, who were attracted to the country by its oil wealth, are desperately trying to find a way out (not that the media would care to cover it).

Next door, in Egypt, successive revolutions have swept away the ancien régime of Mubarak, swept in the Muslim Brotherhood, and resulted in a counterrevolution that brought the Army back to power.  Both blinded by ideology and lacking in principle, the Obama administration single-handedly managed the unrivalled feat of alienating all the parties in Egypt. Mubarak and the Nasserites will always remember how quickly the administration jettisoned them, the Muslim Brotherhood will remember that the US reconciled itself with Sisi, and Sisi will recall that at every step along the way, as his country was unraveling, the Obama administration stood in his way and against the will of the people in Egypt. Of course, the Liberals – a miniscule group that was propped up by the Bush Administration – will remember that Washington supported the repressive Brotherhood as they continue to fall off of balconies and into irrelevance (See Here).

As for Israel, we have also had the misfortune of being on the receiving end of America’s attentions.  Though the past four years have decisively laid to rest any reason to believe in the “linkage” canard – i.e. that most of the regions problems can be traced back to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US State Department decided to double down and try to force the parties into a peace process that neither side was ready to accept. John Kerry, that tireless self-promoter and perennial presidential hopeful, visited Israel and the PNA dozens of times and left in the end with nothing to show for it. Worse, Kerry took the only stable and quiet corner of the entire Middle East, created false expectations, and walked away pointing fingers as the region began to simmer and burn. Meanwhile, as he fiddled and tried to garner himself a Nobel Peace Prize, Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, India-US relations reached a new low, and China stepped up its expansion and territorial claims in the South China Sea.

What is wrong with This Picture?

As I mentioned in a previous post, as conflict between Israel and Hamas finally boiled over, Kerry arrived uninvited and managed once again to walk away with absolutely nothing to show for it. Unwelcome in the region, Kerry decamped to Paris where he met with the Foreign Ministers of Britain, Italy, and France and invited Turkey and Qatar to attend a summit to hash out a ceasefire between the sides. Not only was this attempt at an end run an insult to the parties in the region – after all, the Obama administration failed to invite Israel, Egypt or the Palestinian Authority to this confab – but it empowered the most retrograde forces in the region against those of Washington’s ostensible allies (i.e. Israel, Egypt, PNA and Saudi Arabia). As a furious Palestinian Authority representative told A Sharq Al Awsat, “Whoever wants Qatar and Turkey to represent them can emigrate and go live there. Our only legitimate representative is the PLO.” (See Here)

To the extent that Qatar has been funding Hamas, under the fascist leadership of Erdogan, Turkey has been vocal in its support of Hamas. Essentially a “Friends of Hamas” meeting, this served only to embolden the terrorist organization. It led Hamas to believe that, if it held out a little bit longer, all of its demands would be met. As such, this initiative prolonged the fighting in Gaza and with it the misery of Gaza’s population, the unwitting pawns in Hamas’s media war.

So what now? In the interim, the US and the UN requested and received a commitment on the part of Israel that it would stand down for 72 hours in a humanitarian ceasefire for the benefit of the Palestinians living in Gaza. Unfortunately, less than an hour and a half into ceasefire, either Hamas or Islamic Jihad attacked an Israeli unit that was neutralizing an attack tunnel. A suicide bomber emerged from a tunnel opening and managed to kill three soldiers while his friends tried to collect body parts for future deals with Israel. Once again, the Palestinians demonstrated that they preferred dead Jews over suffering Palestinians and could not be trusted to honor any agreement that might be reached.   

When I heard the news of the ceasefire collapsing and the fears that a soldier had been kidnapped, I have to admit that I immediately assumed that this would only lead to a widening of the war. Like many, I thought that this would strengthen the hand of those who have been calling for regime change in Gaza. After all, even though the Western press has been full-throated in its support of Hamas and directly complicit in the media war and deligitimization campaign that is being waged against Israel, our actual neighbors have been quietly encouraging Israel to use this opportunity to finish off Hamas once and for all.  Notice that, while there have been large and vocal protests in the West, neither in Cairo nor in Amman has there been a large show of support for Hamas.

This is because, at the end of the day, the past couple of years has demonstrated that the real bugbear of the region is not Israel, but rather political Islam. Indeed, last week alone, ISIS killed more people than Israel has managed to kill in one month of fighting. Many of those who were killed were rounded up and shot point blank, while many others were beheaded and had their heads impaled on sticks. No one even knows how many people have died in Libya, Somalia, or Nigeria due to Muslim radicals during the same time.

Yet, rather than escalate, the “uncompromising” and “rightist” Likud party headed by Netanyahu played the grown up and announced that it would no longer seek to reach an agreement with Hamas and would instead unilaterally wind down its operations now that it had accomplished the stated goals of the operation. Hamas, which is desperate for a victory and being strangled by the Egyptian Army along its southern border, responded by lobbing over 100 missiles into Israel today.  At the same time, it has reduced its list of ten demands down to only four. These include a demand that they have complete and unfettered access to their borders for goods and people, that the international community build them an airport and modern port, and that fishermen can fish out to the 12 kilometer maritime boundary (instead of the three kilometers they are allowed now.) While most of these demands are non-starters, the one that Israel will probably accede to is increasing the number of supplies that enters the Strip and allowing more people permission to travel through Israel.

So why, you ask, the long face? For starters, 30 tunnels for 64 of Israel’s best and bravest seems to me to be a steep price to pay. In addition, this war has decimated entire sectors of the Israeli economy such as the tourism industry, which was having a banner year until all of this started.  Now there are people cancelling visits in November because they don’t feel comfortable traveling to a war zone. Similarly, Hamas’s strict control over the media in the Gaza Strip and the complicity of the Western press, which accepts these restrictions for access and crows for the Palestinians in the pages of their papers, have succeeded in giving Israel a black eye. Even worse, the moral equivalency and constant incitement has fueled a resurgent anti-Semitism and placed hundreds of thousands of Jews around the world in harm’s way.  

Meanwhile, within Israel, relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews have hit a low point as tensions rise and each side is more suspicious of the other.  Israeli Arabs cannot help but identify with the suffering of their compatriots in Gaza while Israeli Jews feel betrayed that their Arab neighbors have not spoken up in defense of the army in what most here feel is a “War of Necessity.” At the same time, the far-right has been shamelessly inciting to violence, while what is left of the Left has once again missed an opportunity to serve as a bridge, opting instead for the smug satisfaction of moral posturing.

Though the army has repeatedly gone on record to say that it has war plans that would ensure the occupation of Gaza within ten days to two weeks, it has been equally reluctant to do so. Both the army and the government feel that it would involve a great number of casualties on both sides and would likely involve a long period of occupation that would cost Israel dearly in financial costs and in terms of world public opinion.

Personally, I think that there is another way. As the hardcore Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives make up, at most 10,000 people, if Israel were to go in and either kill or round these people up, it would make a world of difference. After that, the Strip could either be given over to the Palestinian Authority or the United Nations. While some pundits predict that this would only lead to Somalization, I fail to see how it would be worse than what is there now.  By leaving like this, I fear that Israel is sending exactly the wrong message to all the retrograde forces in the region. Since we have already earned the opprobrium of the “high-minded” Westerners and have the tacit support of our neighbors to root out this evil, to fail to do so at this time seems like a truly wasted opportunity. That it is happening on Tisha B’Av, the date on which both temples were destroyed, does not portend well for the future. It seems that winter is coming.