Could nobody find a rope?

Could nobody find a rope?

Is it just me or what? I mean what the hell where they thinking? Which one of our esteemed leaders thought that dropping a few of our very best (and they are) into a seaborne "wolf pit" would be a good idea.

If you know they are looking for a fight, if you know they are looking for attention, the last two things you want to give them are either a fight or attention. Don't get me wrong, the so called peace activists, anti Israel archivists to be more accurate; and their flotilla had to be stopped, absolutely, no question. But tell me, could we not have found a big rope, thrown it into the propeller of the large ferry thereby stopping it in its tracks, then maybe pick off the little boats one by one, either in the same manner or in some other simple non confrontational manner. Then tow them to Ashdod and deal with the "activists" in a secure environment where you have the advantage, more importantly you are in control. Or maybe I am missing something? Could Be?

Now I am surely not the only one who can think of this and I am sure that you yourself can come up with some imaginative ideas. So the scary conclusion one makes form this fiasco is that our leaders dismissed the idea. I for one would like to understand why. Hell if they really wanted to use their toys, then go on, shoot the propeller out of action. It strikes me as a waste of ammunition, but hey, knock yourselves out, and the propeller at the same time.

Sadly my assumption is that our defence establishment was so "gung ho" and wanted the action so much that it managed to convince the decision makers that this was indeed a good idea. If that's the case then the sad realisation is that our leaders are indeed "not fit for purpose". They are not smart or considered enough in their judgement to make the right call. They are apparently incapable of assessing the pros and cons, sizing up the options, looking at the "worst case" scenario and then making the right decision. This should worry us all. It worries the hell out of me. Please can we have new elections?

Sadly, I must also lament at the woefully inept performance and media response by Israel on the PR front ,yet again! Having gone for the risky option, one would have at least expected that crises management and media strategies would have been in place covering all eventualities. Nope, too much to ask apparently. The performance thus far of our spokespeople and PR machine has only accentuated the fact that no real plans were in place. That is amateurish and irresponsible. One keeps hoping things will improve. Oh well maybe one of our"citizen ambassadors" will deal with the situation properly?

The loss of life is tragic and the consequences dire. The world will condemn us, but for the wrong reasons. If the "Stop The War Coalition" "peace activists" decide d to send a convoy of "humanitarian aid" into Taliban held territory in Afghanistan, I would suggest the British army or the Americans for that matter might have a problem. They would not let it happen and if the convoy refused to stop they would be stopped by force. I dare say the Turkish would not be so keen on a convoy of Kurdish "peace activists" wanting to take "humanitarian aid" to the Kurdish "resistance" in the north of their country. How about Tibetan "peace activists" and China, Chechen "peace activists and Russia? I have no doubt that they would use all necessary means to stop them. I can mention other scenarios and what ifs, but I reckon you get the picture.

I am confident that our soldiers did in fact incur fierce and life threatening opposition once they landed on the ship. If an "activist did in fact manage to get one of their automatic weapons and start firing at them, then they really had no choice but to return fire. The soldiers performed to the best of their ability in an impossible situation. Even if the attacks were limited to knives, clubs, metal bars and axes, then the soldiers had little option but to defend themselves.

Peace activists do not carry weapons and do not plan attacks on security forces! They use non violent means of resisting security forces. They do not try and kill those against whom they are demonstrating. That is what terrorists and extremists do!

The organisers of the flotilla bare a huge amount of responsibility for the deaths and injuries and should be held to account. However the abject failure of the Israeli executive to take the right decisions in this instance played a major part, and our leaders should indeed be held responsible.

Perhaps we should find that rope after all and put it to some good use?

What's left?

I wonder what left and right mean in Israel today and in fact if the terms are still relevant.

I define myself as a pragmatic Zionist. Just because we might happen to have the moral and historical right to the whole of greater Israel, does not necessarily mean that we should exercise that right. I am though above all proud to call myself a Zionist.



I would rather live in a smaller true Jewish democracy than in a larger state where lip service is paid to the idea of democracy while a two or even three tier system is established. I want my children to live in a society where the highest level of Jewish (human) morals and values are adhered to and where all citizens and I mean all; in the country can enjoy the rights and benefits and share (equally) the responsibilities of a healthy and flourishing society.


I have long argued that it is time for the mainstream to take back our national flag and the mantle of true Zionism. I say mainstream because well the question of left and right sticks in my head.

One thing I do know is that for too long extreme elements have usurped the national flag and bastardized both the Zionist cause and the Jewish religion for their own political ends. There is I believe a majority of level headed people in the country, both religious and secular, free marketeers and socialists, men and women from the centre and from the periphery who object to extremism in all its forms.

So last night thousands attended a self declared "left wing" demonstration organised by the National Left, a new movement set up by Eldad Yaniv and Shmuel Hasfari with the aim of establishing a viable left wing grass roots movement in the country, reversing the decline of left wing Zionist ideology in the country. Just as the flag has been usurped by the so called right, so the left have been increasingly perceived as anti Zionist, "Pali hugging" liberals who have no sense of national pride or love of country. So I was intrigued by this new movement which promotes the Zionist left. In fact one of their slogans for the demonstration (which I should say, I did not attend) was "Zionism is not settlements".

I have read their manifesto, which is available in English on their facebook page smoleumi and I would urge anyone interested to read it. It is not short at 20,000 words, but I am sure you can find the time. I have also attended one of their parlour meetings, where I proceeded, as is my bent; to argue the Eldad Yaniv on the universal difference between right and left in modern democracy. For the record there is in fact a great deal in their manifesto with which I take issue.

However, I applaud the document as an attempt to raise and address many of the issues most pressing in Israel today and t suggest tht there is indeed an alternative approach. The document is written to provoke and to challenge the status quo. Yaniv maintains that if you agree with just 60% of the document then you are at heart, a leftist. Now I have never considered myself particularly left wing, however the document has caused me to ponder. Could it be that all this time I have been a closet lefty despite my reluctance to split Jerusalem or give up the Golan. If left and right do still exist in Israel then they exist in a manner wholly different than that in other western democracies. Note that I say other democracies because , although perhaps deeply flawed Israel is most defnitley a functioning democracy. However the emergence of a viable alternative to what exists today can only be a good thing for the country. Having read the document, I intend to examine its points in more detail and assess for myself what, if anything; is left in Zionism.

Barak's ego is getting in the way...

The male ego is a fragile entity, which requires massaging on a regular basis. But what happens when the male ego endangers the national security and vital interests of the country. Maybe it's time to stop massaging. What am I on about, I hear you murmur?

OK, let me clarify. Observing our esteemed Defense Minister over the past year, I would venture to suggest that this man's ego is getting in the way. It is getting in the way of his role as the leader of the Labour Party and from what I see, it is now getting in the way of his role as Defense Minister.

Last week Barak announced that he will not be extending Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi's tenure for an extra year. Ashkenazi, who by all accounts has done an excellent job, and is credited with the resurgence of the IDF will step down at the beginning of 2011. Word on the street is that Barak does not like the competition, as he sees it; posed by Ashkenazi as a champion of Israeli security. Whereas, Bibi and Barak have suggested that the IDF requires change at the top to ensure its dynamic nature and competitive edge. Apparently the beneficial effects of change do not apply to the Defense ministry.

Now don't get me wrong, these matters require strong, capable and confident individuals who are able to make tough decisions when necessary, however, to my mind, they also have to able to listen to and consider other positions, even if they choose not to take them on board. This is not a matter of ego it is a matter of true confidence and leadership ability. To my mind ego more often tends to mask insecurity and low self confidence. It seems unlikely that the highly complex security issues faced by the country can be best navigated by a man more preoccupied with his own image and position (media please take note) than with the job at hand. Surely these matters require a more considered approach.

I have a great deal of respect for General Benny Ganz, the Deputy Chief of Staff and I am sure he is a worthy candidate and doing a great job. However, we must ask ourselves, do we really want such key appointments filled by "compromise candidates"? To be honest I am not qualified to say which of Generals, Gallant, Eisenkot or Ganz is the best man to fill Ashkenazi's shoes (perhaps I should say boots), or which of them should have got the deputy role, however I do know that it cannot be in the best interests of the country to settle upon a "compromise". The men (perhaps one day women as well) making theses decisions need to put their egos on hold and ensure that we get the best candidate for the job, not the one who may serve the decision makers' own interests. As far as I know The Chief of Staff's job description does not include sucking up to the Defense Minister or making him look good in the eyes of the public.

After last year's election, Barak and his ego, decided that the ideals and policies of the Labour party had to be sacrificed in order that he serve as Defense Minister in the most right wing government this country has ever seen. The country needed him! Barak's decision to join the government dismayed many labour supporters and has seen the near collapse of the party. Barak and his ego maintain that he is the only man capable of heading the security of the nation. For sure this man has an incredible record and has given his life to the defense of the country, for which he has my utmost respect and personal thanks. However just as the IDF may benefit from a change at the top, so may the Defense portfolio. I know the government could benefit from a few changes, maybe more than a few. If Barak and his ego are indeed concerned about his image and legacy, perhaps they should consider their position sooner rather than later.

It is clear to me, the Labour party would also benefit from a change at the top. The only way the Labour party can revive its fortunes and become relevant to voters is if it gets such a change. Perhaps the security of the country would be better served by having a strong and viable opposition which advocated and fought for policies which could change the misguided direction of the country for the better.

It is time for Ehud Barak to take his ego into private life where it can be best exploited. The country on the other hand, is in need of leaders who curb their egos and put their own interests second to those of the nation. Sadly, it would appear that Ehud Barak and his ego is no longer capable of such selfless action. It is time for the mantle to be passed to someone who is, presuming that is, there is someone to pass it to.

Stop them before it is too late!

How long will it be before the government decides to act. I hate to labour the point and to be honest, two blogs on the same subject in less than a month could get a little tedious. However this is too important to ignore and I'm really pissed off.

So another bunch of young soldiers decide to make a political statement in uniform. The fact that the statement is right wing is besides the point. A left wing statement would have been just as bad (see my previous blog). It seems pretty clear to me that such activities are not isolated incidents by individuals, rather they are instigated by a well organised network both within and outwith the IDF with its own agenda and a willful disregard for the true security of this country.

Ehud Barak has been swift to condemn the demonstration by the soldiers and so has Bibi. The soldiers themselves have been punished with between one month and two weeks in jail. While our Defense Minister makes light of these incidents suggesting they are isolated incidents a disturbing pattern is emerging within the IDF.

This week , the Chief Rabbi of the IDF Brigadier General Rontzki stated that "soldiers who show mercy to the enemy during wartime, will be damned". he was referring to a passage in the book of Jeremiah which says, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord with a slack hand, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood." Apparently he also referred to the qualities of the ideal combat soldier. "In Israel's wars, warriors are God-fearing people, righteous people, people who don't have sins on their hands," he said. "One needs to fight with an understanding of what one is fighting for."

Now I don't know about you, but I reckon these statements would be more at home within the Iranian Republican Guard, rather than the IDF. The IDF is not God's army, it belongs to the country, the whole country. Soldiers act in the government's name not in God's. Whether religious or secular right wing or left, these soldiers are there to perform the tasks allocated to them by the democratically elected government of the day, not by some religious nut advocating behaviour which belongs in biblical times and should stay there.

It is the IDF's determination to minimise civilian casualties on the battlefield which sets it apart. When British Colonel Richard Kemp testifies to the UN that "The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.", it is something of which we can be proud. Ehud Barak is keen to point out that Israel is the "most moral" army in the world. It is a pretty hard statement to defend when the army's Chief Rabbi is running around advocating biblical cruelty on the battlefield.

At the very least the Rabbi, a senior officer in the IDF should be seriously reprimanded for such statements. Allowing such behaviour only encourages and emboldens other soldiers such as those who demonstrated and their Rabbis who support and advocate such behaviour. They represent a clear and present danger to Israel's security, not to mention to the moral fibre of the country. The IDF and the government must take a zero tolerance approach to such behaviour. Soldiers who behave in such a manner should be thrown out of their units and the Rabbis behind their behaviour prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Failure to act swiftly and decisively will have dire consequences for the IDF and for the country as a whole.

The danger from within...

The military figures prominently in Israeli society, some say too prominently and well, there is certainly a debate to be had on that subject. However that conversation, we will save for another time.

It is important to remember that the IDF is an instrument of the democratically elected government of Israel. The IDF does not and should not have a say in policy. It is there to carry out the policies and orders of the government of the day.

In a highly politicised society where people are active and passionate on all sides of the political debate, maintaining the apolitical nature of the IDF is paramount. When the uniform goes on then political views need to be left at the door or gate if you prefer.

The disgraceful display of political protest during the Kfir unit's ceremony at the wailing wall, marking the end of basic training for new recruits; represents a clear and present danger to the security of the state. The overtly political display threatens the very nature of the IDF and its effectiveness as a military unit. When individual or groups of soldiers start choosing what missions they will or will not perform, then the security of the state is under threat. The actions of these young soldiers and their families, who joined their protest from the spectators gallery; only serve to undermine the defense of the country.

The soldiers must be disciplined to the full capacity of the military courts. In addition there should be an investigation to see if the family members who waved banners at the ceremony are guilty of inciting soldiers to refuse orders, and if they are, they should be prosecuted.

I must stress this is not about left and right. This is not about West Bank or Judea and Samaria. This is not about... should settlements be evacuated or not. This is about the very survival of the state of Israel as a democratic state and the IDF's ability to defend it. If you think I am being over dramatic then think again.

As soldier fighting in Beirut during the first Lebanon war in 1982, I remember the huge demonstration in Rabin Square (Malchey Yisrael at the time). While we were up there fighting, we heard around four hundred thousand people demonstrated against the war. We were angry and felt betrayed, well some of us did and then again some did not, in fact several of the guys who were out on leave attended that demonstration before returning for duty not long after. Like it or not, the demonstration was a legitimate display of political opinion in a democratic country, legitimate in civilian life... however not in uniform. And it is imperative that in a country which depends upon citizens from all backgrounds and sides of the political spectrum to serve and defend the nation, that this distinction be maintained.

I am firmly of the opinion that you cannot choose if or where you serve or what tasks you will or will not perform. You can only choose how you will serve and in what manner you will carry out your orders. You can of course refuse to carry out an illegal order. However, what and what is not illegal, again is for the courts to decide, not individuals.

Just as soldiers with left wing opinions should not have been allowed to refuse to serve in Lebanon or today on the West Bank, so too soldiers with right wing opinions should not be allowed to refuse to evacuate settlements or to perform any other task demanded of them by their officers and ultimately their government. You cannot call one side traitors for their actions and then betray your country in the very same manner. Many left wing refusniks have served jail time for their refusal. It is important that right wing refusniks be treated in the same manner.

In recent times there has been far too many attempts to promote political and religious agendas within the IDF. Those responsible must be brought to account and the IDF must defend itself from all such attempts regardless of which side of the argument they may come from.

The President, The Prize & The Damage Done

I am not one for conspiracy theories, however I cannot escape the suspicion that someone at the Nobel Foundation is really "out to get" the new American President. A Nobel prize for peace was the last thing the new President needed (or deserved) at this time.

Now for the record, I like the man. I think he is extremely capable and one of the best things to happen to US politics...no, to world politics in a long long time. He is a leader who wants to effect real change. He speaks well, there is no one better. He inspires like no other and he has indeed introduced the notion, that perhaps there could be hope for the world after all.

So, does he really deserve a Nobel Prize for peace?? Sorry but I think not. As far as I am aware the Noble prize is given for achievement not for promise or potential. Perhaps what he should have received is "most promising newcomer", that he is for sure. However unless that promise leads to results then hey, potential unrealised is well... nothing.

Not only is this a bizarre and questionable decision, in my opinion it is also an extremely dangerous one with wide ranging consequences for the conflict regions in the world.

If we look at Barak Obama's policies in regard to the various conflicts currently in need of a solution, then one surely cannot come to the conclusion that he has had success with any of them.

I will mention but a few high profile conflicts and apologise to the millions of suffering innocents for omitting so many other conflicts which also cry out for action.


In Afghanistan the US and coalition forces are on the back foot. Obama is being asked to send another 50,000 to 60,000 troops. This one will not end soon, not well anyway. In Iraq, things look better, but can we say this will continue or that for that matter any improvement is due to Obama or his administration. North Korea continues to do as it pleases, with little or any fear of "consequences". Perversely, detaining journalists without reason seems to bring its own rewards from the US administration. Iran is running rings around the US administration, and the international community; successfully buying time for its nuclear programme in the process.

Which brings me to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the worlds "favourite" conflict, and which, lets be honest is the one which concerns me most. I am also under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that it is his approach to this "hot potato" which won him the admiration of the Nobel Foundation. To me it is ironic, as I strongly believe that his naive and flawed approach is making it much harder (as if such a thing were possible) for any kind of agreement to be reached.

When he started out, lets just say that there was a great deal of good will towards the man and his administration. People wanted to believe that this guy, although not the messiah, was pretty much as close as we could hope for in this day and age. Well as Monty Python said "he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy".

He's not naughty really, he just doesn't understand how he is supposed to behave. He tries hard, however in his desire to be a "good boy" and to change the face of world politics which are at the moment, lets face it, pretty damn ugly; he is unwittingly causing a huge amount of damage which will take years to fix, particularly in the Middle East. Well Mr President, it is time to grow up, and fast.

He came on strong to Israel insisting that all settlement activity cease. While pissing off the Israelis ( he did however stand up in Cairo and confirm America's unbreakable bond with Israel) , it really pleased the Palestinians and the Arab world. At last they thought, we have an ally in the White House. He made pleasant overtures to the Arab and Muslim worlds. He offered a hand out to Iran and Syria. So, a good start by all accounts. reasons for optimism perhaps.

Well what has happened since? Nothing... well in fact nothing would be an improvement. Things are getting worse not better. The Arab world, which Obama had hoped would make small concessions towards Israel has snubbed the President and toughened their stance in regard to Israel and any form of "normalisation". Obama has now backtracked in regard to settlements and is negotiating a compromise with the Israelis. The Israelis are now slightly happier, however poor Abu Mazen. The President of the Palestinian Authority has been led up the garden path by Obama and has been left far weaker than he was before Obama's arrival on the scene, which lets face it was not that strong to begin with.

With what he understood to be the full support of the US administration, Abbas mistakenly insisted he would not meet with the Israelis until a total freeze in settlement activity, including East Jerusalem. He was then forced, by the Obama administration; to back down and meet with Netanyahu, seriously undermining what little authority he has left in the eyes of the Palestinian people. Obama succeeded in providing a political victory to Hamas, who looked on and then said to the Palestinian people "we told you so".


So Obama's record so far in the Israeli Palestinian conflict is pretty poor. He has undermined Mahmoud Abbas, leaving him weak with elections on the horizon. His showing of support for the Palestinians has led them to harden their position and up their demands. With the "support" of the White House, they see far less reason to compromise. The Arab world has also decided that they can take advantage of the new administration's policies and demand more of Israel. Israel has gone into bunker mode feeling threatened by Obama's approach and its consequences.

President Obama started out with the best of intentions. I truly believe that. However we all know where a road paved with good intentions can lead. If the Nobel laureate wants to seriously tackle the Israeli Palestinian conflict then he will have to rethink his strategy and act swiftly to repair the initial damage he has caused. Only by taking a firm and even handed approach with all sides can he hope to achieve any progress.


The solution cannot be based purely upon "Land for Peace". Along with land there must also be "Peace for Peace". This demands a wholesale change in attitude on the side of the Palestinians and the Arab world. Israelis want to know that if they give up land they will receive peace and not rockets in return. The Palestinians must be made to understand that it is not just the Israelis who will have to make difficult sacrifices in the pursuit of peace. The Israelis need to know that the status quo is no longer an option and that Israeli settlement in the West Bank need to come to an end. The Arab world must realise that they can no longer use the Palestinians as an excuse for inaction and Israel as the scapegoat for all their ills. The international community also needs to realise that its unhealthy obsession with this conflict only serves to exacerbate the situation.


This is a seemingly impossible task, however of all those who have come before, it seems to me that just maybe, President Obama has a better chance than most. He needs to remember however, he is dealing with a tough neighbourhood where compromise is seen as weakness and where waxing lyrical and good intentions are no substitute for smart, determined and well executed policies.

When did we decide to give up on our children?

Today I took my children to school for the opening of the school year. Loaded down with new books for the year there is no way they could have managed without help from their parents. We are among the fortunate ones in Israel. The school is well managed (all things are relative), well equipped and all in all provides a positive environment in which our children can learn and flourish.

I say fortunate because by all accounts the story is not the same across the country. In Petah Tikvah, Israeli children of Ethiopian decent have been refused places at schools in a wanton display of of racism. They cannot come to school because they are "black", because they are primitive. This kind of behaviour belongs in the southern United states of the 1960s, not in a supposed modern democratic society in the twenty first century.

In Sderot, test were introduced for children applying for places for year 1, something that by my understanding is technically illegal in the country. The local authority get round this rule by applying the tests as workshops not "tests", thereby flouting the law. the end result is that many children, looking forward to their first year in "big school" are left without a place and their parents left fighting again for their children;s basic right.

In the Arab population I understand that there are over one thousand pupils left without a place in school for this year. This is a totally unacceptable situation which must be addressed as a matter of urgency, just as the above incidents must be.

However it seems to me that the problem runs far deeper and that, Israel's approach to the young in the country is deeply flawed and in desperate need of improvement, if not a complete overhaul. Only today I read in the paper that according to the UN, Israeli youth have one of the highest rates of Heroin use in the world, with 1.9 percent of 12 -18 year olds having used the drug. In addition Israel a country of circa 7 million uses more ecstasy tablets than the UK, with a population of circa 60 million. last night a powerful documentary programme revealed the extent of street violence in Israel, directly related to the consumption of alcohol by young people. Anyone who viewed the attack by a gang of drunken youths on an innocent bystander could not help but feel shock and horror. The murder of Leonard Karp by a gang of drunken youths on a Tel Aviv beach promenade also attests to the shameful situation on our streets.

So when was it that we decide to give up on our children. The greatest natural resource we have is not just being wasted, it is being sabotaged. The continued cuts in education and social welfare continues to take its toll on out young. When I became a parent for the first time a friend pointed out to me, "how my child sees me live my life is how he understand life needs to be lived". Perhaps this is also the situation for a country. When our young witness the adult population behave in a certain manner, well it is no surprise that they will tend to follow suit. There are great people in this country for sure and great youngsters, who are for sure the most precious and important asset in the country. This asset must be nurtured and protected, not forgotten and cast aside for short term expediency.

However , the lack of commitment to education and social welfare in this country is taking its toll. The disintegration of our education system is impacting directly not just on our youth but on the young adults who have now left a system which thirty years ago was one of the best in the world and today sadly languishes at the bottom of many a league table. The lack of funding for education and social welfare ultimately has its price in rising crime levels and decreasing levels of achievement in science technology and the arts. All of these are areas in which this country has excelled to date allowing Israel to contributed far beyond expectations to the world at large. If the current situation is allowed to continue, not only will we be living in a more violent society with questionable values. We will also be living in a country which will cease to excel. Excellence begins in first grade, even earlier in our kindergartens.

We ignore this situation at our peril. Parents need to take more interest and have more involvement in their children;s lives, providing clear boundaries and guidance. They need to demand of their that their schools educate their children, not just in order to pass exams but in order to develop them as individuals and responsible members of society. The country's leaders must create an environment where the idea of a civil society is not just promoted but brought into being. In a civil society it is the responsibility of those more fortunate, in this case those who's children have the benefit of a good education; to ensure that such education is available to all.

The future of every man, woman and child in this country is at stake and as such it is incumbent on each and every one of us to ensure that as parents, as teachers, as citizens, we do not give up on our children.