Today's clash between Lebanese and Israeli forces has raised tensions to dangerous level. Yesterday's rocket attack on Eilat, or perhaps I should say Aqaba, killed one, injured three and raises questions about the security situation in the Sinai and the south in general.
Perhaps it is a coincidence that these two events should happen only one day apart on opposite sides of the country and then again, perhaps not.
In Lebanon, by all accounts, a senior Hezbollah figure is about o be implicated in the murder of former PriministerHariri. Hassan Nasrallah has stated that any suggestion of Hezbollah involvement would be unacceptable to the group and cause a political crisis in Lebanon. Following the historical joint visit of the Syrian and Saudi leaders to the country, seeking to avoid such a crisis, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a conflagration with Israel would be an effective way to deflect attention from the investigation and from any suggestion of involvement on the part of Hezbollah. There is nothing quite like a good old war with the Zionist entity to bring the Lebanese masses, and the wider Arab world, for that matter; together. Who cares who killed Hariri, its those pesky Jews we need to worry about.
In the south of Israel, recent rocket attacks on Ashkelon and parts of the country point to increased activity by Hamas and other groups, culminating in the murder of Jordanian taxi driver as rockets failed to hit their target in Eilat, landing in Aqaba injuring three people in addition to the one fatality. Could it be that Hamas are indeed concerned by the White House's apparent insistence on direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Whether they will bear fruit or not, it appears that they will indeed happen and this of course does not serve the Hamas agenda. Just when things were going so well with dead flotilla activists, world condemnation of Israel and an easing, but not too much, of the siege, those damned Americans have to push Abbas into agreeing to meet with Bibi. Bummer!
Oh well, the obvious answer is to fire a few rockets, provoke Israel into retaliation, have a few civilian casualties, but not too few and boom, we can torpedo any idea of talks.
In both Lebanon and the south of Israel the enemies of peace in the region are concerned at how events are unfolding in the region. This should make the rest of us happy as perhaps things are moving in the right direction. At the same time, we should be diligent in ensuring that their self serving spoiler tactics do no provoke an explosion of finance. The summer has been hot enough thus far. And of course, there is no such thing as coincidence, particularly in the Middle East.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tie a Yellow Ribbon
The 1973 uber kitsch pop song " Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak tree"by the group Dawn was a major hit and opens with the line, "I'm coming home, I've done my time". It tells the story of a returning convict who has written to his wife asking her to tie a yellow ribbon around a tree, if she wants him back. If he does not see a ribbon, then he will accept that she does not him and not bother her again. So why am I on about 1970s kitsch, you may well ask.
In nineteenth century America it is said that some women would tie a yellow ribbon in their hair as a sign of devotion to their husbands and sweethearts serving in the US Cavalry. Old movie buffs will remember the John Wayne film, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon". In the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, when US diplomats were held hostage by Iranian students (if i am not mistaken the current Iranian President was involved in the incident), a yellow Ribbon campaign was set up to show solidarity and support for the hostages. The yellow ribbon has quite a history.
Today I tied a yellow ribbon to my car (like many others in the country and around the world) in support of Gilad Shalit. Four years ago on this day, Gilad was kidnapped during an attack , which lest we forget; killed two Israeli soldiers, Lt. Hanan Barak and Staff Sergeant Pavel Slutzker and wounded four others.
For four years Gilad Shalit has been held hostage by Hamas. And there's the rub. Gilad Shalit is indeed a hostage not a prisoner. He is held by a terrorist organisation which refuses to divulge his whereabouts, his physical condition or allow any visitation by the Red Cross. We have no knowledge of the conditions in which he has been kept for these past four years, save for one video released in September 2009. In contrast, take for instance probably the most high profile prisoner sitting in an Israeli jail, Marwan Barghouti. Serving life imprisonment for murder and terror offences, earlier this year, Barghouti earned his PHD in political science from Cairo University, facilitated by the Israeli prison service. Barghouti is one of thousands of Palestinians who take advantage of the opportunity to study by correspondence in a host of international and Israeli universities.
The contrasts between the Palestinian prisoner and the Israeli hostage are there for all to see. Unfortunately the world chooses not to see or not to care. Now I do not doubt that there are Palestinian prisoners who are held without good reason or who have been ill treated by the Israeli authorities, and such incidents need to be investigated and rectified. However, the bottom line is that we know where the Palestinian prisoners are, we know how they are. They have access to legal council, and to their families.
The thousands of yellow ribbons tied in solidarity with Gilad send a strong message to the Shalit family, that they are not alone, that theirs is a struggle shared by the whole country and all civilised people. They are a message to Hamas and to the wider world that we will not abandon our children, that we will not forget them. Unlike Hamas, we are not prepared to callously sacrifice them or cynically leave them to their fate.
The hero in the song returned to "a hundred yellow ribbons round the old oak tree". If we need to tie a million ribbons, or ten million ribbons, we must keep tying them so as Gilad will come home and so he will get to see them on his return.
In nineteenth century America it is said that some women would tie a yellow ribbon in their hair as a sign of devotion to their husbands and sweethearts serving in the US Cavalry. Old movie buffs will remember the John Wayne film, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon". In the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, when US diplomats were held hostage by Iranian students (if i am not mistaken the current Iranian President was involved in the incident), a yellow Ribbon campaign was set up to show solidarity and support for the hostages. The yellow ribbon has quite a history.
Today I tied a yellow ribbon to my car (like many others in the country and around the world) in support of Gilad Shalit. Four years ago on this day, Gilad was kidnapped during an attack , which lest we forget; killed two Israeli soldiers, Lt. Hanan Barak and Staff Sergeant Pavel Slutzker and wounded four others.
For four years Gilad Shalit has been held hostage by Hamas. And there's the rub. Gilad Shalit is indeed a hostage not a prisoner. He is held by a terrorist organisation which refuses to divulge his whereabouts, his physical condition or allow any visitation by the Red Cross. We have no knowledge of the conditions in which he has been kept for these past four years, save for one video released in September 2009. In contrast, take for instance probably the most high profile prisoner sitting in an Israeli jail, Marwan Barghouti. Serving life imprisonment for murder and terror offences, earlier this year, Barghouti earned his PHD in political science from Cairo University, facilitated by the Israeli prison service. Barghouti is one of thousands of Palestinians who take advantage of the opportunity to study by correspondence in a host of international and Israeli universities.
The contrasts between the Palestinian prisoner and the Israeli hostage are there for all to see. Unfortunately the world chooses not to see or not to care. Now I do not doubt that there are Palestinian prisoners who are held without good reason or who have been ill treated by the Israeli authorities, and such incidents need to be investigated and rectified. However, the bottom line is that we know where the Palestinian prisoners are, we know how they are. They have access to legal council, and to their families.
The thousands of yellow ribbons tied in solidarity with Gilad send a strong message to the Shalit family, that they are not alone, that theirs is a struggle shared by the whole country and all civilised people. They are a message to Hamas and to the wider world that we will not abandon our children, that we will not forget them. Unlike Hamas, we are not prepared to callously sacrifice them or cynically leave them to their fate.
The hero in the song returned to "a hundred yellow ribbons round the old oak tree". If we need to tie a million ribbons, or ten million ribbons, we must keep tying them so as Gilad will come home and so he will get to see them on his return.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
What's in a name?
A thought for the National left...
Some say a people gets the government it deserves. That is a scary thought in today's Israel. Do we really deserve the "Three Stooges" who since cobbling together their coalition, have never missed an opportunity to miss the point, misread the situation and mistakenly decide upon the wrong course of action?
Well perhaps we do. According to a Poll in Haaretz, a majority of Israelis 52%, support the "Bibi and Barak Show" in regard to the flotilla debacle. Apparently this majority approves of the decisions, the actions and the consequent management of the situation and its fallout.
Incredible but true. And herein lies the problem for the National left as it sets about rebuilding the "left wing" camp in the country. Whereas the majority of Israelis may have the potential to identify with the movement and large parts of its agenda, these same people have a serious problem in identifying with the "left".
I still question whether the terms left and right are still relevant today. In Israel these terms tend to be defined more on security issues. In the wider world however, today there is little to separate the policies of the left and the right in so called modern democracies. Perhaps though, this is a debate for another time.
If the National Left is to be more than a talking shop for the converted. If the movement is serious about reaching out to those potential supporters, who may not realise that they have latent "lefty" tendencies, then the movement and its leaders need to address this issue and find a way to widen the appeal of the movement. A way needs to be found to appeal to the majority of Israelis who according to the Haaretz poll, currently see Bibi, Barak and even Lieberman as competent leaders and decision makers. A way needs to be found to cut through the siege mentality which promotes support for the scare mongers who chose to maintain a status quo where the erosion of Israeli society, Israeli security and Israeli values is assured.
When I attended a parlour session in Tel Aviv, I was not surprised to see that my fellow attendees where in the main, well educated Ashkenazi liberals, academics and professionals. Now, I have not attended similar sessions in the periphery, so I may be mistaken, perhaps the makeup of other parlours was more inclusive. However, if the National left is not to repeat the cardinal errors of the labour movement where it alienated its natural constituents, where it is seen as an elitist movement which does not really represent the interests of ordinary people or the country for that matter, then it needs to change. In "marketing speak", it needs to rebrand. It needs to rebrand "The Left". It also needs to rebrand Zionism. In order to succeed, the National Left should look at changing its approach and perhaps at changing its name... yep, its name.
So what's in a name. Well in my opinion, quite a lot actually. I was interested to learn that the decision to name the country Israel was only taken shortly before Ben Gurion's declaration of independence. Apparently, there was a heated debate with names such as Herzlia, Judea and others in the running, but Ben Gurion decided that there was only one possible name for the country and thank God (or providence if you prefer) the state of Israel was declared (as if it could have been anything else).
One of the major stated goals of the National left is to take back Zionism from the "right", (personally I prefer the term"extremists") who have perverted Zionism for their own political aims; and return the ideology to its rightful home. Quite right too, however for me this is about more than taking Zionism back. It also needs to be about redefining Zionism in the eyes of its detractors, both at home and abroad. At home those who view the left as a naive group of cappuccino drinking Askenazi elite, need to see the National Left as the true Zionists, patriots who have the best interests, the vital interests of the country and "all its people "at heart. Abroad, people need to see that the belief in the upholding of the State of Israel as the national homeland for the Jews, is wholly consistent with liberal democratic values and practices.
So, if the National Left wants to truly recapture the mantle of Zionism, it should do so properly. Rename the National Left as the Zionist Movement and if a political party is to emerge from the movement call it The Zionist Party. A name is only as good as the values and actions which stand behind it. The perception of Zionism today is flawed. The values wrongly perceived to stand behind Zionism today are extremely negative. These perceptions must be altered, they must be rectified.
When the values and behaviour promoted by the National Left in its manifesto are labelled as Zionism, when the two are synonymous, then we pull the rug out from under and the national flag from the hands of the extremists, we negate the need for left and right, we dispose of the negative connotations both at home and abroad. Once the term National Left is replaced with the term, Zionist, Zionism will have been truly returned to its rightful home. Under the brand of Zionism this ideology and approach to the future of Israel will go a long way to repairing the damaged image of Zionism in the outside world. More importantly it can then appeal to and be adopted by a much wider audience at home.
Perhaps then the people of Israel can deserve the kind of government it might just get.
Some say a people gets the government it deserves. That is a scary thought in today's Israel. Do we really deserve the "Three Stooges" who since cobbling together their coalition, have never missed an opportunity to miss the point, misread the situation and mistakenly decide upon the wrong course of action?
Well perhaps we do. According to a Poll in Haaretz, a majority of Israelis 52%, support the "Bibi and Barak Show" in regard to the flotilla debacle. Apparently this majority approves of the decisions, the actions and the consequent management of the situation and its fallout.
Incredible but true. And herein lies the problem for the National left as it sets about rebuilding the "left wing" camp in the country. Whereas the majority of Israelis may have the potential to identify with the movement and large parts of its agenda, these same people have a serious problem in identifying with the "left".
I still question whether the terms left and right are still relevant today. In Israel these terms tend to be defined more on security issues. In the wider world however, today there is little to separate the policies of the left and the right in so called modern democracies. Perhaps though, this is a debate for another time.
If the National Left is to be more than a talking shop for the converted. If the movement is serious about reaching out to those potential supporters, who may not realise that they have latent "lefty" tendencies, then the movement and its leaders need to address this issue and find a way to widen the appeal of the movement. A way needs to be found to appeal to the majority of Israelis who according to the Haaretz poll, currently see Bibi, Barak and even Lieberman as competent leaders and decision makers. A way needs to be found to cut through the siege mentality which promotes support for the scare mongers who chose to maintain a status quo where the erosion of Israeli society, Israeli security and Israeli values is assured.
When I attended a parlour session in Tel Aviv, I was not surprised to see that my fellow attendees where in the main, well educated Ashkenazi liberals, academics and professionals. Now, I have not attended similar sessions in the periphery, so I may be mistaken, perhaps the makeup of other parlours was more inclusive. However, if the National left is not to repeat the cardinal errors of the labour movement where it alienated its natural constituents, where it is seen as an elitist movement which does not really represent the interests of ordinary people or the country for that matter, then it needs to change. In "marketing speak", it needs to rebrand. It needs to rebrand "The Left". It also needs to rebrand Zionism. In order to succeed, the National Left should look at changing its approach and perhaps at changing its name... yep, its name.
So what's in a name. Well in my opinion, quite a lot actually. I was interested to learn that the decision to name the country Israel was only taken shortly before Ben Gurion's declaration of independence. Apparently, there was a heated debate with names such as Herzlia, Judea and others in the running, but Ben Gurion decided that there was only one possible name for the country and thank God (or providence if you prefer) the state of Israel was declared (as if it could have been anything else).
One of the major stated goals of the National left is to take back Zionism from the "right", (personally I prefer the term"extremists") who have perverted Zionism for their own political aims; and return the ideology to its rightful home. Quite right too, however for me this is about more than taking Zionism back. It also needs to be about redefining Zionism in the eyes of its detractors, both at home and abroad. At home those who view the left as a naive group of cappuccino drinking Askenazi elite, need to see the National Left as the true Zionists, patriots who have the best interests, the vital interests of the country and "all its people "at heart. Abroad, people need to see that the belief in the upholding of the State of Israel as the national homeland for the Jews, is wholly consistent with liberal democratic values and practices.
So, if the National Left wants to truly recapture the mantle of Zionism, it should do so properly. Rename the National Left as the Zionist Movement and if a political party is to emerge from the movement call it The Zionist Party. A name is only as good as the values and actions which stand behind it. The perception of Zionism today is flawed. The values wrongly perceived to stand behind Zionism today are extremely negative. These perceptions must be altered, they must be rectified.
When the values and behaviour promoted by the National Left in its manifesto are labelled as Zionism, when the two are synonymous, then we pull the rug out from under and the national flag from the hands of the extremists, we negate the need for left and right, we dispose of the negative connotations both at home and abroad. Once the term National Left is replaced with the term, Zionist, Zionism will have been truly returned to its rightful home. Under the brand of Zionism this ideology and approach to the future of Israel will go a long way to repairing the damaged image of Zionism in the outside world. More importantly it can then appeal to and be adopted by a much wider audience at home.
Perhaps then the people of Israel can deserve the kind of government it might just get.
Monday, May 31, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)