Experts test "panda porn"
Sky News, Nivember 23, 2006
Scientists in Thailand think they may have discovered the key to the notoriously difficult business of getting pandas to mate - panda porn.
Experts in Chiang Mai say the unusual initiative has led to a baby boom among one of the world's most beloved but endangered animals.
Zhang Zhihe, a leading Chinese expert on the giant panda, said the boom was down to showing uninitiated males DVDs of other pandas mating.
Mr Zhang said: "It works."
The panda porn is one of many techniques tried over the decades to get captive pandas to mate.
The efforts to understand and simulate conditions for mating and raising cubs have paid off in China, the panda's native habitat.
Now comes the next test - getting the trick to work outside China.
The day of reckoning will come in January, when Prasertsak Buntragulpoontawee hopes to bring off a successful mating between male Chuang Chuang and partner Lin Hui in Thailand.
The saucy audio-visual approach "is the same idea as chimpanzees seeing people smoke and then copying it", says the Thai researcher.
Among the roughly 20 pandas outside China, no cubs were born this year through mating, Zhang said.
But, at a US zoo in September, artificially inseminated sperm yielded an offspring.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Settlements built on private Palestinian lands
Blow to settlement movement
Haaretz, November 23, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
If the data published in the Peace Now report yesterday are true, the settlement movement yesterday suffered a severe blow. This is true both from a public relations point of view - for years the movement has claimed that the settlements have never stolen land - and from a legal point of view, although this has yet to be examined.
For many months now, the state prosecution has been clashing in the High Court of Justice with Peace Now over its duty under the Freedom of Information Law to publish data about ownership of land on which settlements were built. The state requested to refrain from revealing the data on the grounds that "the subject of the petition is a complex and sensitive one, and questions of the country's security and foreign relations are tied up with it. " Its representatives asked for more time. Now it seems that time is up.
The material which Peace Now wanted the state to publish was apparently leaked to it. Attorney Talya Sasson appears to have used the same database for her report on illegal outposts. Sasson's mandate was the outposts and Peace Now expanded the mandate to include settlements.
What appears to be the most significant and surprising revelation is that about the building on private Palestinian lands after 1979 - the year in which the High Court of Justice handed down what is known as "the Elon Moreh ruling. " Until that time, Israel would set up settlements by seizing lands "for urgent military purposes," which is congruent with international law. This leaves the official ownership of the lands still in the hands of the original owner and it is valid for a limited period. In order to continue holding the lands, the army must issue notification every few years, that it has taken over the lands again.
This was the custom until 1979 and dozens of settlements were built in this way. In that year, the army seized 700 dunams belonging to the villagers of Rujeib, south of Nablus, for the establishment of Elon Moreh. The land owners petitioned the High Court of Justice and the state responded that one reason for the land seizure was an urgent security need.
At that point, the settlers stated that this was not a passing security need and that the settlement was built as a permanent site that served religious Zionist, and political, ends. As a result, the court accepted the land owners' petition and canceled the seizure orders. From that point on, the state stopped issuing seizure orders when settlement building.
Now it appears from the report that settlements continued to be built on private Palestinian lands after 1979 - even the large urban settlements inside the "blocs," such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Givat Ze'ev and Ariel.
When the permanent borders of the state of Israel are drawn, and the government wants to annex these blocs, this new information could be a severe stumbling block.
Haaretz, November 23, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
If the data published in the Peace Now report yesterday are true, the settlement movement yesterday suffered a severe blow. This is true both from a public relations point of view - for years the movement has claimed that the settlements have never stolen land - and from a legal point of view, although this has yet to be examined.
For many months now, the state prosecution has been clashing in the High Court of Justice with Peace Now over its duty under the Freedom of Information Law to publish data about ownership of land on which settlements were built. The state requested to refrain from revealing the data on the grounds that "the subject of the petition is a complex and sensitive one, and questions of the country's security and foreign relations are tied up with it. " Its representatives asked for more time. Now it seems that time is up.
The material which Peace Now wanted the state to publish was apparently leaked to it. Attorney Talya Sasson appears to have used the same database for her report on illegal outposts. Sasson's mandate was the outposts and Peace Now expanded the mandate to include settlements.
What appears to be the most significant and surprising revelation is that about the building on private Palestinian lands after 1979 - the year in which the High Court of Justice handed down what is known as "the Elon Moreh ruling. " Until that time, Israel would set up settlements by seizing lands "for urgent military purposes," which is congruent with international law. This leaves the official ownership of the lands still in the hands of the original owner and it is valid for a limited period. In order to continue holding the lands, the army must issue notification every few years, that it has taken over the lands again.
This was the custom until 1979 and dozens of settlements were built in this way. In that year, the army seized 700 dunams belonging to the villagers of Rujeib, south of Nablus, for the establishment of Elon Moreh. The land owners petitioned the High Court of Justice and the state responded that one reason for the land seizure was an urgent security need.
At that point, the settlers stated that this was not a passing security need and that the settlement was built as a permanent site that served religious Zionist, and political, ends. As a result, the court accepted the land owners' petition and canceled the seizure orders. From that point on, the state stopped issuing seizure orders when settlement building.
Now it appears from the report that settlements continued to be built on private Palestinian lands after 1979 - even the large urban settlements inside the "blocs," such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Givat Ze'ev and Ariel.
When the permanent borders of the state of Israel are drawn, and the government wants to annex these blocs, this new information could be a severe stumbling block.
The Gaydamak system and making the government provide for its citizens
How to stop Gaydamak
Haaretz, November 23, 2006
By Uzi Benziman
In 1977, Shmuel Flatto-Sharon, a new immigrant and a kooky businessman, was elected to the Knesset. He paved his way to the legislature by promising acts of charity and telling stories of good work for the Jewish people in which he was supposedly engaged in the past. Despite his strange character, the cloud of doubt hanging over his head (in France he was considered an escaped felon) and his garbled Hebrew, he managed to win the votes of more than 35,000 people. At the time, his election was considered an insult to Israeli democracy. Since then, it has been viewed as an oddity.
Thirty years later, the state is facing a similar phenomenon, but this time the potential for damage is far greater. As things look now, it is doubtful if it will go down in the annals of Israeli parliamentarianism as a mere anecdote.
Arcadi Gaydamak is a new immigrant who spreads his money around in what seems to be philanthropy for its own sake. Unlike Flatto-Sharon, the suspicions against Gaydamak did not translate into an indictment. He has even avoided directly tying his generosity to real political moves. Flatto-Sharon failed in that he was found guilty of giving bribes that helped him get elected to the Knesset. Gaydamak gives charity to a population in distress, ostensibly with no intention of political gain.
However, Gaydamak stumbled, revealing a small portion of his intentions. In an interview with Yediot Ahronot on Sunday, he spoke of his ability to get elected to the premiership, because of his distinguished personal attributes in contrast to the operational failures of the current leaders, and about the large-scale support he enjoys among the public. "If I decide to run, I will get 40 seats in the Knesset," the lord was quoted in the paper. "Politicians know it and they are afraid.”
Gaydamak did indeed gain purchase in wide sectors of the public - among football and basketball fans, the population exposed to terror in the north and the south, immigrants from the former Soviet Union, evacuees from the Gaza Strip, and others. He buys himself amity with money, and this conduct challenges the rules of the game by which Israeli democracy has so far existed.
Even in a 60-year-old country that long ago lost its innocence, the basis for the fight over the voter's ballot has so far not been about money. Parties vied with each other over their positions, their interests, and their ways of operation.
Even an unrealistic society is aware of the connection between money and power, recognizes the custom of governments to lavish favors on election eve and knows the twisted ways by which the candidates fund their campaigns. However, even in such a society, it has not so far been considered legitimate to buy public support outright with money.
Gaydamak seems to be undermining the existing system; the question is if Israeli democracy can protect itself from him.
The solution will not come from the legal realm: there is no legal flaw in Gaydamak's conduct. It is his right to contribute money as he sees fit, and he does not link his generosity to actual political activity. Reading his statements in Yediot Ahronot, one might suspect that he is casting his bread on the water, but he can claim that his generosity is no different than that of the Joint Distribution Committee.
The law protects society from crooked fund-raising for political campaigns only when such activity is connected to elections. If the individual separates lavishing favors on the public from expecting a return on his chivalry, he has committed no infraction. Moreover, Gaydamak sets no conditions and has promised nothing to those he treats well. Thus, the component of recompense that would turn his favors into bribery is lacking. However his statements in the interview ostensibly show his intention to enter the political arena and to build himself up on the gifts he hands out to his potential voters.
The way to thwart Gaydamak's system is to make it redundant: to make the government fulfill its obligations and provide for its citizens, who are in need at this time of a patron.
Haaretz, November 23, 2006
By Uzi Benziman
In 1977, Shmuel Flatto-Sharon, a new immigrant and a kooky businessman, was elected to the Knesset. He paved his way to the legislature by promising acts of charity and telling stories of good work for the Jewish people in which he was supposedly engaged in the past. Despite his strange character, the cloud of doubt hanging over his head (in France he was considered an escaped felon) and his garbled Hebrew, he managed to win the votes of more than 35,000 people. At the time, his election was considered an insult to Israeli democracy. Since then, it has been viewed as an oddity.
Thirty years later, the state is facing a similar phenomenon, but this time the potential for damage is far greater. As things look now, it is doubtful if it will go down in the annals of Israeli parliamentarianism as a mere anecdote.
Arcadi Gaydamak is a new immigrant who spreads his money around in what seems to be philanthropy for its own sake. Unlike Flatto-Sharon, the suspicions against Gaydamak did not translate into an indictment. He has even avoided directly tying his generosity to real political moves. Flatto-Sharon failed in that he was found guilty of giving bribes that helped him get elected to the Knesset. Gaydamak gives charity to a population in distress, ostensibly with no intention of political gain.
However, Gaydamak stumbled, revealing a small portion of his intentions. In an interview with Yediot Ahronot on Sunday, he spoke of his ability to get elected to the premiership, because of his distinguished personal attributes in contrast to the operational failures of the current leaders, and about the large-scale support he enjoys among the public. "If I decide to run, I will get 40 seats in the Knesset," the lord was quoted in the paper. "Politicians know it and they are afraid.”
Gaydamak did indeed gain purchase in wide sectors of the public - among football and basketball fans, the population exposed to terror in the north and the south, immigrants from the former Soviet Union, evacuees from the Gaza Strip, and others. He buys himself amity with money, and this conduct challenges the rules of the game by which Israeli democracy has so far existed.
Even in a 60-year-old country that long ago lost its innocence, the basis for the fight over the voter's ballot has so far not been about money. Parties vied with each other over their positions, their interests, and their ways of operation.
Even an unrealistic society is aware of the connection between money and power, recognizes the custom of governments to lavish favors on election eve and knows the twisted ways by which the candidates fund their campaigns. However, even in such a society, it has not so far been considered legitimate to buy public support outright with money.
Gaydamak seems to be undermining the existing system; the question is if Israeli democracy can protect itself from him.
The solution will not come from the legal realm: there is no legal flaw in Gaydamak's conduct. It is his right to contribute money as he sees fit, and he does not link his generosity to actual political activity. Reading his statements in Yediot Ahronot, one might suspect that he is casting his bread on the water, but he can claim that his generosity is no different than that of the Joint Distribution Committee.
The law protects society from crooked fund-raising for political campaigns only when such activity is connected to elections. If the individual separates lavishing favors on the public from expecting a return on his chivalry, he has committed no infraction. Moreover, Gaydamak sets no conditions and has promised nothing to those he treats well. Thus, the component of recompense that would turn his favors into bribery is lacking. However his statements in the interview ostensibly show his intention to enter the political arena and to build himself up on the gifts he hands out to his potential voters.
The way to thwart Gaydamak's system is to make it redundant: to make the government fulfill its obligations and provide for its citizens, who are in need at this time of a patron.
It still doesn't feel like the government is governing
Olmert vs. Everyone
Haaretz Editorial, November 23, 2006
Amir Peretz is no junior official who allowed himself, despite the rules of good governance, to speak to the Palestinian Authority chairman about a cease-fire in Gaza. This is the defense minister of the State of Israel, who is supposed to deal with everything connected to security, including a halt to shooting – if only he had the prime minister's trust. Israel reacted scornfully to Hamas' stated readiness to hold its fire only because that readiness had its roots in a telephone call between Peretz and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), which was mediated by MK Mohammed Barakeh
The petty power struggle over a success that has yet to take place, and is genuinely intended to save lives, indicates failure in the way burning issues are treated, and an excessive focus on prestige and small-time politics, when cooperative and responsible leadership is what's needed.
It appears that Ehud Olmert's dissatisfaction with Peretz's independent initiative is actually an example of the prime minister's chronic dissatisfaction with all who surround him. These are people whom Olmert himself appointed and with whose assistance he is supposed to be running the country. The prime minister is signaling to the public that he himself does not see his government as suitable. If the defense minister is slated to be replaced, then Olmert must replace him. If the current acting justice minister is not to his liking, then Olmert should have chosen someone else for the job. If Avigdor Lieberman doesn't have authority on strategic affairs, as has been implied, then there was no need for Olmert to hand over these matters to him. The prime minister argues that the cabinet is not an open debating club, and in so doing buries any political initiative that arises – even if the one who suggests it is the foreign minister, a key part of whose role is to set policy.
The Qassam fire targeting Israel has not stopped, and the rockets appear likely to become ever more advanced and reach areas still further north than Sderot and Ashkelon. Talk of a cease-fire, no matter who is doing the talking, is the order of the day. It is impossible to safeguard the entire State of Israel – house by house, classroom by classroom – against threats from the north and the south, nor can citizens' safety be assured by development and acquisition of more and more weapons systems, each of which generally has its answer in some primitive and irritating response
Since even an extensive military operation in Gaza, like that which the opposition warmly recommends, will not prevent a renewal of hostile activities via new creative means, we must ceaselessly and tirelessly strive for a cease-fire. We cannot stop the use of knives, suicide bombers, Qassams or tunnels through assassinations or tanks, but only through agreements. No weapon has yet been found that is more effective than a mutual cease-fire.
In order to lead the State of Israel, one needs more than the ability to survive. The prime minister must bring together a team of ministers he trusts, and give them status and authority. A year has passed, a war has passed, and it still doesn't feel like the government is governing.
Haaretz Editorial, November 23, 2006
Amir Peretz is no junior official who allowed himself, despite the rules of good governance, to speak to the Palestinian Authority chairman about a cease-fire in Gaza. This is the defense minister of the State of Israel, who is supposed to deal with everything connected to security, including a halt to shooting – if only he had the prime minister's trust. Israel reacted scornfully to Hamas' stated readiness to hold its fire only because that readiness had its roots in a telephone call between Peretz and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), which was mediated by MK Mohammed Barakeh
The petty power struggle over a success that has yet to take place, and is genuinely intended to save lives, indicates failure in the way burning issues are treated, and an excessive focus on prestige and small-time politics, when cooperative and responsible leadership is what's needed.
It appears that Ehud Olmert's dissatisfaction with Peretz's independent initiative is actually an example of the prime minister's chronic dissatisfaction with all who surround him. These are people whom Olmert himself appointed and with whose assistance he is supposed to be running the country. The prime minister is signaling to the public that he himself does not see his government as suitable. If the defense minister is slated to be replaced, then Olmert must replace him. If the current acting justice minister is not to his liking, then Olmert should have chosen someone else for the job. If Avigdor Lieberman doesn't have authority on strategic affairs, as has been implied, then there was no need for Olmert to hand over these matters to him. The prime minister argues that the cabinet is not an open debating club, and in so doing buries any political initiative that arises – even if the one who suggests it is the foreign minister, a key part of whose role is to set policy.
The Qassam fire targeting Israel has not stopped, and the rockets appear likely to become ever more advanced and reach areas still further north than Sderot and Ashkelon. Talk of a cease-fire, no matter who is doing the talking, is the order of the day. It is impossible to safeguard the entire State of Israel – house by house, classroom by classroom – against threats from the north and the south, nor can citizens' safety be assured by development and acquisition of more and more weapons systems, each of which generally has its answer in some primitive and irritating response
Since even an extensive military operation in Gaza, like that which the opposition warmly recommends, will not prevent a renewal of hostile activities via new creative means, we must ceaselessly and tirelessly strive for a cease-fire. We cannot stop the use of knives, suicide bombers, Qassams or tunnels through assassinations or tanks, but only through agreements. No weapon has yet been found that is more effective than a mutual cease-fire.
In order to lead the State of Israel, one needs more than the ability to survive. The prime minister must bring together a team of ministers he trusts, and give them status and authority. A year has passed, a war has passed, and it still doesn't feel like the government is governing.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
The Leica Freedom Train
Here's a piece of history that I hadn't heard before.....and if you want to find more about this, go to Google..and enter "the Leica Freedom Train".
Subject: A timeless example of character
The Leica is the pioneer 35mm camera.
From a nitpicking point of view, it wasn't the very first still camera to use 35mm movie film, but it was the first to be widely publicized and successfully marketed. It created the "candid camera" boom of the 1930s. It is a German product - precise, minimalist, utterly efficient. Behind its worldwide acceptance as a creative tool was a family-owned, socially oriented firm that, during the Nazi era, acted with uncommon grace, generosity and modesty.
E. Leitz Inc., designer and manufacturer of Germany's most famous photographic product, saved its Jews. And Ernst Leitz II, the steely eyed Protestant patriarch who headed the closely held firm, as the Holocaust loomed across Europe, acted in such a way as to earn the title, "the photography industry's Schindler." As George Gilbert, a veteran writer on topics photographic, told the story at last week's convention of the Leica Historical Society of America in Portland, Oregon, Leitz Inc., founded in Wetzlar in 1869, had a tradition of enlightened behavior toward its workers.
Pensions, sick leave, health insurance - all were instituted early on at Leitz, which depended for its work force upon generations of skilled employees - many of whom were Jewish. The 'Leica Freedom Train As soon as Adolf Hitler was named chancellor of Germany in 1933, Ernst Leitz II began receiving frantic calls from Jewish associates, asking for his help in getting them and their families out of the country.
As Christians, Leitz and his family were immune to Nazi Germany's Nuremberg laws, which restricted the movement of Jews and limited their professional activities. To help his Jewish workers and colleagues, Leitz quietly established what has become known among historians of the Holocaust as "the Leica Freedom Train," a covert means of allowing Jews to leave Germany in the guise of Leitz employees being assigned overseas. Employees, retailers, family members, even friends of family members were "assigned" to Leitz sales offices in France, Britain, Hong Kong and the United States.
Leitz's activities intensified after the Kristallnacht of November 1938, during which synagogues and Jewish shops were burned across Germany. Before long, German "employees" were disembarking from the ocean liner Bremen at a New York pier and making their way to the Manhattan office of Leitz Inc., where executives quickly found them jobs in the photographic industry. Each new arrival had around his or her neck the symbol of freedom - a new Leica.
The refugees were paid a stipend until they could find work. Out of this migration came designers, repair technicians, salespeople, marketers and writers for the photographic press. The "Leica Freedom Train" was at its height in 1938 and early 1939, delivering groups of refugees to New York every few weeks. Then, with the invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Germany closed its borders. By that time, hundreds of endangered Jews had escaped to America, thanks to the Leitzes' efforts. How did Ernst Leitz II and his staff get away with it?
Leitz Inc. was an internationally recognized brand that reflected credit on the newly resurgent Reich. The company produced range-finders and other optical systems for the German military. Also, the Nazi government desperately needed hard currency from abroad, and Leitz's single biggest market for optical goods was the United States.
Even so, members of the Leitz family and firm suffered for their good works. A top executive, Alfred Turk, was jailed for working to help Jews and freed only after the payment of a large bribe. Leitz's daughter, Elsie Kuhn-Leitz, was imprisoned by the Gestapo after she was caught at the border, helping Jewish women cross into Switzerland. She eventually was freed but endured rough treatment in the course of questioning. She also fell under suspicion when she attempted to improve the living conditions of 700 to 800 Ukrainian slave laborers, all of them women, who had been assigned to work in the plant during the 1940s.(After the war, Kuhn-Leitz received numerous honors for her humanitarian efforts, among them the Officier d'honneur des Palms Academic from France in 1965 and the Aristide Briand Medal from the European Academy in the 1970s.)
Why has no one told this story until now? According to the late Norman Lipton, a freelance writer and editor, the Leitz family wanted no publicity for its heroic efforts. Only after the last member of the Leitz family was dead did the "Leica Freedom Train" finally come to light. It is now the subject of a book, "The Greatest Invention of the Leitz Family: The Leica Freedom Train," by Frank Dabba Smith, a California- born rabbi currently living in England.
Thank you for reading this little known story, and if you feel inclined, as I did, to pass it on to others, please do so. It is a excellent example of character, human kindness and bravery.
Subject: A timeless example of character
The Leica is the pioneer 35mm camera.
From a nitpicking point of view, it wasn't the very first still camera to use 35mm movie film, but it was the first to be widely publicized and successfully marketed. It created the "candid camera" boom of the 1930s. It is a German product - precise, minimalist, utterly efficient. Behind its worldwide acceptance as a creative tool was a family-owned, socially oriented firm that, during the Nazi era, acted with uncommon grace, generosity and modesty.
E. Leitz Inc., designer and manufacturer of Germany's most famous photographic product, saved its Jews. And Ernst Leitz II, the steely eyed Protestant patriarch who headed the closely held firm, as the Holocaust loomed across Europe, acted in such a way as to earn the title, "the photography industry's Schindler." As George Gilbert, a veteran writer on topics photographic, told the story at last week's convention of the Leica Historical Society of America in Portland, Oregon, Leitz Inc., founded in Wetzlar in 1869, had a tradition of enlightened behavior toward its workers.
Pensions, sick leave, health insurance - all were instituted early on at Leitz, which depended for its work force upon generations of skilled employees - many of whom were Jewish. The 'Leica Freedom Train As soon as Adolf Hitler was named chancellor of Germany in 1933, Ernst Leitz II began receiving frantic calls from Jewish associates, asking for his help in getting them and their families out of the country.
As Christians, Leitz and his family were immune to Nazi Germany's Nuremberg laws, which restricted the movement of Jews and limited their professional activities. To help his Jewish workers and colleagues, Leitz quietly established what has become known among historians of the Holocaust as "the Leica Freedom Train," a covert means of allowing Jews to leave Germany in the guise of Leitz employees being assigned overseas. Employees, retailers, family members, even friends of family members were "assigned" to Leitz sales offices in France, Britain, Hong Kong and the United States.
Leitz's activities intensified after the Kristallnacht of November 1938, during which synagogues and Jewish shops were burned across Germany. Before long, German "employees" were disembarking from the ocean liner Bremen at a New York pier and making their way to the Manhattan office of Leitz Inc., where executives quickly found them jobs in the photographic industry. Each new arrival had around his or her neck the symbol of freedom - a new Leica.
The refugees were paid a stipend until they could find work. Out of this migration came designers, repair technicians, salespeople, marketers and writers for the photographic press. The "Leica Freedom Train" was at its height in 1938 and early 1939, delivering groups of refugees to New York every few weeks. Then, with the invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Germany closed its borders. By that time, hundreds of endangered Jews had escaped to America, thanks to the Leitzes' efforts. How did Ernst Leitz II and his staff get away with it?
Leitz Inc. was an internationally recognized brand that reflected credit on the newly resurgent Reich. The company produced range-finders and other optical systems for the German military. Also, the Nazi government desperately needed hard currency from abroad, and Leitz's single biggest market for optical goods was the United States.
Even so, members of the Leitz family and firm suffered for their good works. A top executive, Alfred Turk, was jailed for working to help Jews and freed only after the payment of a large bribe. Leitz's daughter, Elsie Kuhn-Leitz, was imprisoned by the Gestapo after she was caught at the border, helping Jewish women cross into Switzerland. She eventually was freed but endured rough treatment in the course of questioning. She also fell under suspicion when she attempted to improve the living conditions of 700 to 800 Ukrainian slave laborers, all of them women, who had been assigned to work in the plant during the 1940s.(After the war, Kuhn-Leitz received numerous honors for her humanitarian efforts, among them the Officier d'honneur des Palms Academic from France in 1965 and the Aristide Briand Medal from the European Academy in the 1970s.)
Why has no one told this story until now? According to the late Norman Lipton, a freelance writer and editor, the Leitz family wanted no publicity for its heroic efforts. Only after the last member of the Leitz family was dead did the "Leica Freedom Train" finally come to light. It is now the subject of a book, "The Greatest Invention of the Leitz Family: The Leica Freedom Train," by Frank Dabba Smith, a California- born rabbi currently living in England.
Thank you for reading this little known story, and if you feel inclined, as I did, to pass it on to others, please do so. It is a excellent example of character, human kindness and bravery.
Israel's legal system and its abuse of the young victim of abuse
10 year-old waits four years for hearing on alleged abuse
Haaretz, November 22, 2006
By Ruth Sinai, Haaretz Correspondent
Almost four years have passed since the sister of a ten-year-old boy filed an abuse complaint on her brother's behalf against their uncle who regularly beat and emotionally abused him. The legal proceedings in the case have been continually delayed and the uncle has not yet been tried.
The girl also claimed that she had suffered abuse at the hands of the uncle.
The uncle was charged three years ago, but a series of delays, some initiated by the defendant and some due to court foot-dragging, have put the now 14-year-old boy through a rigorous ordeal lasting years.
The uncle was charged with assault in November 2003, some ten months after the complaint was originally filed. The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court scheduled a hearing for March 27, 2005, one year and four months after the indictment.
In February 2005, the defendant asked to postpone the hearing until after the Jewish holiday of Purim, so that he could properly celebrate the holiday. The court rescheduled the hearing for April 10. The hearing took place as scheduled, but the defendant did not have proper representation, so the proceedings were again postponed.
The following hearing was scheduled for November 20, 2005, exactly two years after the indictment. On the day of the hearing, the prosecution and the defense requested another delay in order to attempt to reach a settlement. The hearing was again postponed, this time for December 6, 2005.
This hearing was also delayed because it was scheduled for the same day that the Jerusalem District Prosecutor's office was slated to participate in an education program. The hearing was once again delayed.
The next hearing was scheduled for April 24, 2006. Shortly after the date was set, the defense attorney in the case recused himself and the hearing was postponed until May 22.
At this hearing, the defendant denied the allegations against him and a hearing for the presentation of the evidence was scheduled for October 24, 2006. After the victim underwent preparation for his testimony, he was barred from testifying at the hearing due to another postponement, this time because the defense attorney had fallen ill and lost her voice. The next hearing is set to take place on December 25.
Dr. Yitzhak Kedman of the National Council for the Child in Israel wrote in a letter to the head of the court system, Justice Moshe Gal in which he condemned the repeated delays.
"One can only imagine what this boy must be going through,” Kedman wrote. "He is a victim of a crime and his interests have been postponed and pushed aside regularly by the judicial system, and his childhood is passing him by in tense anticipation of the trial."
Kedman also mentioned that children are naturally hesitant to report abuse, and the "inconceivable torture" suffered by the victim is detrimental to efforts to encourage other children to come forward and report abuse.
He asked Gal and the judicial system to find a way to expedite proceedings when minors are involved, especially in cases of sexual and physical abuse within the family.
Haaretz, November 22, 2006
By Ruth Sinai, Haaretz Correspondent
Almost four years have passed since the sister of a ten-year-old boy filed an abuse complaint on her brother's behalf against their uncle who regularly beat and emotionally abused him. The legal proceedings in the case have been continually delayed and the uncle has not yet been tried.
The girl also claimed that she had suffered abuse at the hands of the uncle.
The uncle was charged three years ago, but a series of delays, some initiated by the defendant and some due to court foot-dragging, have put the now 14-year-old boy through a rigorous ordeal lasting years.
The uncle was charged with assault in November 2003, some ten months after the complaint was originally filed. The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court scheduled a hearing for March 27, 2005, one year and four months after the indictment.
In February 2005, the defendant asked to postpone the hearing until after the Jewish holiday of Purim, so that he could properly celebrate the holiday. The court rescheduled the hearing for April 10. The hearing took place as scheduled, but the defendant did not have proper representation, so the proceedings were again postponed.
The following hearing was scheduled for November 20, 2005, exactly two years after the indictment. On the day of the hearing, the prosecution and the defense requested another delay in order to attempt to reach a settlement. The hearing was again postponed, this time for December 6, 2005.
This hearing was also delayed because it was scheduled for the same day that the Jerusalem District Prosecutor's office was slated to participate in an education program. The hearing was once again delayed.
The next hearing was scheduled for April 24, 2006. Shortly after the date was set, the defense attorney in the case recused himself and the hearing was postponed until May 22.
At this hearing, the defendant denied the allegations against him and a hearing for the presentation of the evidence was scheduled for October 24, 2006. After the victim underwent preparation for his testimony, he was barred from testifying at the hearing due to another postponement, this time because the defense attorney had fallen ill and lost her voice. The next hearing is set to take place on December 25.
Dr. Yitzhak Kedman of the National Council for the Child in Israel wrote in a letter to the head of the court system, Justice Moshe Gal in which he condemned the repeated delays.
"One can only imagine what this boy must be going through,” Kedman wrote. "He is a victim of a crime and his interests have been postponed and pushed aside regularly by the judicial system, and his childhood is passing him by in tense anticipation of the trial."
Kedman also mentioned that children are naturally hesitant to report abuse, and the "inconceivable torture" suffered by the victim is detrimental to efforts to encourage other children to come forward and report abuse.
He asked Gal and the judicial system to find a way to expedite proceedings when minors are involved, especially in cases of sexual and physical abuse within the family.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Settlements violate property rights of many Palestinians
40% of settlements built on Arab land, study finds
Haaretz, November 21, 2006
By Yair Sheleg, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
A new study conducted by left-wing group Peace Now has found that approximately 40 percent of settlements, including long-standing communities, are built on private Palestinian land and not on state-owned land.
In a press conference held in Jerusalem on Tuesday, the group presented a report asserting that out of a total area of 157,000 dunams used by West Bank settlements and industrial zones, 61,000 dunams (approximately 38 percent) are privately owned by Palestinians.
The report singles out the two largest settlements, both of which have city status. It says that 86.4 percent of Ma'ale Adumim is built on Palestinian land, and 35.1 percent of Ariel.
The group says that the data presented in the report "demonstrates that the property rights of many Palestinians have been systematically violated in the course of settlement building."
State-owned lands amount to 87,000 dunams (including 2,000 dunams soon to be declared as owned by the state) and just 2,000 dunams are Jewish-owned.
The leaders of Peace Now said at the press conference that the report is a serious indictment of the entire settlement movement.
"Israel has violated even its own norms and laws in the West Bank, through the confiscation of private Palestinian property and the building of settlements upon them," the report says.
According to the group, the data shows that settlers are guilty not only of larceny, in stealing collective assets of the Palestinian people, they also disinherit Palestinian residents from their privately-owned property.
The report also cites the case of the settlement of Elon Moreh, which was established in 1979 on 700 dunams of land belonging to a village near Nablus, which had been seized by Israel for military purposes.
The order to seize the land was, according to the report, issued by the then-commander of the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who is now minister for infrastructure.
Haaretz, November 21, 2006
By Yair Sheleg, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
A new study conducted by left-wing group Peace Now has found that approximately 40 percent of settlements, including long-standing communities, are built on private Palestinian land and not on state-owned land.
In a press conference held in Jerusalem on Tuesday, the group presented a report asserting that out of a total area of 157,000 dunams used by West Bank settlements and industrial zones, 61,000 dunams (approximately 38 percent) are privately owned by Palestinians.
The report singles out the two largest settlements, both of which have city status. It says that 86.4 percent of Ma'ale Adumim is built on Palestinian land, and 35.1 percent of Ariel.
The group says that the data presented in the report "demonstrates that the property rights of many Palestinians have been systematically violated in the course of settlement building."
State-owned lands amount to 87,000 dunams (including 2,000 dunams soon to be declared as owned by the state) and just 2,000 dunams are Jewish-owned.
The leaders of Peace Now said at the press conference that the report is a serious indictment of the entire settlement movement.
"Israel has violated even its own norms and laws in the West Bank, through the confiscation of private Palestinian property and the building of settlements upon them," the report says.
According to the group, the data shows that settlers are guilty not only of larceny, in stealing collective assets of the Palestinian people, they also disinherit Palestinian residents from their privately-owned property.
The report also cites the case of the settlement of Elon Moreh, which was established in 1979 on 700 dunams of land belonging to a village near Nablus, which had been seized by Israel for military purposes.
The order to seize the land was, according to the report, issued by the then-commander of the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who is now minister for infrastructure.
Cat not to be allowed to guard the cream?
Mazuz to turn down PM request to take on Justice portfolio
Haaretz, November 21, 2006
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
Attorney General Menachem Mazuz will not allow Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to hold the justice minister portfolio in addition to his other duties, legal experts said.
The main reason for the likely opposition to such a development is the series of ongoing investigations of alleged corruption involving the prime minister.
Even though Mazuz has still not been asked by the Prime Minister's Office to offer a legal opinion, the matter is gaining in importance as acting Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit is due to relinquish the post by Thursday.
Olmert is seriously considering taking over the justice portfolio to avoid tension with Haim Ramon, who held the post and resigned in August when charges of indecent assault were brought against him. It is believed the portfolio will be returned to Ramon once the trial is over, on the assumption he will be acquitted.
Meanwhile, Sheetrit has threatened to resign from the cabinet, surrendering both the Justice and Housing ministries if he is not permanently appointed justice minister.
Sheetrit was named as a temporary replacement for Ramon on August 23. However, the duration of this appointment cannot exceed three months according to the Basic Law on the Government.
In a legal opinion written by Mazuz a year ago, commenting on Olmert's status as a temporary replacement of Benjamin Netanyahu at the Treasury, the attorney general wrote that the temporary post could not be extended beyond the three-month limit.
Mazuz also wrote that the prime minister was not entitled to appoint a different person as a temporary replacement, nor could he hold the portfolio as a caretaker.
The implication of such a legal opinion is that the government will have to appoint a permanent minister over the Justice Ministry after the three-month period ends.
Upon his appointment as acting justice minister, Sheetrit said he would gladly leave the post in favor of Ramon, if he is acquitted. Sheetrit added that even if he is appointed permanently to the post, he would relinquish it if Ramon comes back.
A similar announcement was made on Monday by Sheetrit's office.
However, sources close to the acting justice minister said he had not been approached by Olmert, and it is not known whether Olmert intends to give Sheetrit the post permanently.
Haaretz, November 21, 2006
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
Attorney General Menachem Mazuz will not allow Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to hold the justice minister portfolio in addition to his other duties, legal experts said.
The main reason for the likely opposition to such a development is the series of ongoing investigations of alleged corruption involving the prime minister.
Even though Mazuz has still not been asked by the Prime Minister's Office to offer a legal opinion, the matter is gaining in importance as acting Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit is due to relinquish the post by Thursday.
Olmert is seriously considering taking over the justice portfolio to avoid tension with Haim Ramon, who held the post and resigned in August when charges of indecent assault were brought against him. It is believed the portfolio will be returned to Ramon once the trial is over, on the assumption he will be acquitted.
Meanwhile, Sheetrit has threatened to resign from the cabinet, surrendering both the Justice and Housing ministries if he is not permanently appointed justice minister.
Sheetrit was named as a temporary replacement for Ramon on August 23. However, the duration of this appointment cannot exceed three months according to the Basic Law on the Government.
In a legal opinion written by Mazuz a year ago, commenting on Olmert's status as a temporary replacement of Benjamin Netanyahu at the Treasury, the attorney general wrote that the temporary post could not be extended beyond the three-month limit.
Mazuz also wrote that the prime minister was not entitled to appoint a different person as a temporary replacement, nor could he hold the portfolio as a caretaker.
The implication of such a legal opinion is that the government will have to appoint a permanent minister over the Justice Ministry after the three-month period ends.
Upon his appointment as acting justice minister, Sheetrit said he would gladly leave the post in favor of Ramon, if he is acquitted. Sheetrit added that even if he is appointed permanently to the post, he would relinquish it if Ramon comes back.
A similar announcement was made on Monday by Sheetrit's office.
However, sources close to the acting justice minister said he had not been approached by Olmert, and it is not known whether Olmert intends to give Sheetrit the post permanently.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The State's betrayal of its citizens
The day Gaydamak reaps the harvest
Ha'aretz, November 20, 2006
By Daniel Ben Simon
From now on let every Hebrew mother and every Hebrew father know that the state of Israel has become a holding company. The sovereignty for which Jews longed for hundreds of years and for which generations of Israelis have struggled, has begun to take on the character of a Jewish village. In recent years, it has shed its responsibility for the welfare of its residents and transferred it to private bodies.
The residents of the North know this very well. In the summer, they became aware of the new substitutes for the state. In the most difficult hours there was no state official to heed their calls for help. Tens of thousands held out during the war thanks to dozens of private companies and voluntary organizations that provided food, drink, medicines, blankets, sweets, buses and money, as well as attention and sympathy.
The residents of Kiryat Malachi also know this. The city, which is a 30-minute drive from the center of the country, has known only one growth industry over the past decade: from zero soup kitchens a few years ago, it now has five and counting. Hundreds of families are receiving hot meals once a day thanks to voluntary organizations and commercial enterprises. The existence of almost the entire city depends on contributions, grants and charity. Under the state's stewardship, Kiryat Malachi, a significant city in Israel, home of its president and 20,000 other residents, has become one big soup kitchen. The state has left the arena.
Now comes Sderot to join the circle of communities dependent on the goodwill of others. For years its residents bewailed their poverty and distress. Political leaders took advantage of their innocence to win their votes. They promised industry, livelihood and security before the elections, and disappeared after them. Over the past five years, since the first volley of Qassams, the residents have hoped to receive some protection from the state. With time and more volleys, the protection wore down along with faith in the country. But the rockets did do one good thing for Sderot that its 50 years of existence did not manage to do: they opened the hearts of philanthropists, companies, organizations, better-off communities and of ordinary people who wanted to ease the residents' plight.
In the switching of roles between the state and the philanthropists, one lord stands out above the rest. It does not matter who Arcadi Gaydamak is and his motives are not important. It does not matter what he is aiming for and how he made his money; the worrisome fact is that in abdicating its responsibility, the state has turned this man into one of the most influential individuals in the country.
He is the true welfare minister where there is no welfare minister. The great extent of his generosity has outstripped that of the Diaspora Jews, high-tech tycoons, wealthy brokers, banking chiefs, the heads of the insurance companies and all the bodies that have recently entered into the vacuum created by the state.
The sight of the buses that took the children from Sderot on vacation to Eilat should have all of us in a panic. Hundreds of children were pushed by their parents to grab an empty seat on the buses the lord brought to their town. Those who did not get on wept bitterly.
How ironic that the man who could have granted a weekend, or two or three, of fun for the bombarded children of Sderot is a Sderot resident himself, and by coincidence also Israel's defense minister. Is it a problem for the Defense Ministry to organize 100 buses, or even 1,000 buses? Is it a problem for the defense minister, who controls more than NIS 50 billion, to organize a few hundred thousand shekels for this purpose? It is hardly the monetary equivalent of a few cluster bombs out of about a million we left in southern Lebanon as a vengeful souvenir of the failed war. Amir Peretz, who preached involvement of the state in the welfare of its weaker segments, also bears the burden of responsibility for the culture of the lords establishing itself in our lives.
Therefore, let no Hebrew mother nor Hebrew father be surprised if in a few years, Gaydamak takes advantage of the state's betrayal of its citizens to reap the profits of his philanthropy business. Let no one in Israel be surprised that during elections, there will be masses who will want to reward him for his great generosity - whether as president, prime minister, or party chief. It does not matter whether he knows Hebrew or not. It does not matter who his backers are. On the day the Israelis conclude that their country has become a village, they will pave the way for the famed philanthropist to stand at its head.
Ha'aretz, November 20, 2006
By Daniel Ben Simon
From now on let every Hebrew mother and every Hebrew father know that the state of Israel has become a holding company. The sovereignty for which Jews longed for hundreds of years and for which generations of Israelis have struggled, has begun to take on the character of a Jewish village. In recent years, it has shed its responsibility for the welfare of its residents and transferred it to private bodies.
The residents of the North know this very well. In the summer, they became aware of the new substitutes for the state. In the most difficult hours there was no state official to heed their calls for help. Tens of thousands held out during the war thanks to dozens of private companies and voluntary organizations that provided food, drink, medicines, blankets, sweets, buses and money, as well as attention and sympathy.
The residents of Kiryat Malachi also know this. The city, which is a 30-minute drive from the center of the country, has known only one growth industry over the past decade: from zero soup kitchens a few years ago, it now has five and counting. Hundreds of families are receiving hot meals once a day thanks to voluntary organizations and commercial enterprises. The existence of almost the entire city depends on contributions, grants and charity. Under the state's stewardship, Kiryat Malachi, a significant city in Israel, home of its president and 20,000 other residents, has become one big soup kitchen. The state has left the arena.
Now comes Sderot to join the circle of communities dependent on the goodwill of others. For years its residents bewailed their poverty and distress. Political leaders took advantage of their innocence to win their votes. They promised industry, livelihood and security before the elections, and disappeared after them. Over the past five years, since the first volley of Qassams, the residents have hoped to receive some protection from the state. With time and more volleys, the protection wore down along with faith in the country. But the rockets did do one good thing for Sderot that its 50 years of existence did not manage to do: they opened the hearts of philanthropists, companies, organizations, better-off communities and of ordinary people who wanted to ease the residents' plight.
In the switching of roles between the state and the philanthropists, one lord stands out above the rest. It does not matter who Arcadi Gaydamak is and his motives are not important. It does not matter what he is aiming for and how he made his money; the worrisome fact is that in abdicating its responsibility, the state has turned this man into one of the most influential individuals in the country.
He is the true welfare minister where there is no welfare minister. The great extent of his generosity has outstripped that of the Diaspora Jews, high-tech tycoons, wealthy brokers, banking chiefs, the heads of the insurance companies and all the bodies that have recently entered into the vacuum created by the state.
The sight of the buses that took the children from Sderot on vacation to Eilat should have all of us in a panic. Hundreds of children were pushed by their parents to grab an empty seat on the buses the lord brought to their town. Those who did not get on wept bitterly.
How ironic that the man who could have granted a weekend, or two or three, of fun for the bombarded children of Sderot is a Sderot resident himself, and by coincidence also Israel's defense minister. Is it a problem for the Defense Ministry to organize 100 buses, or even 1,000 buses? Is it a problem for the defense minister, who controls more than NIS 50 billion, to organize a few hundred thousand shekels for this purpose? It is hardly the monetary equivalent of a few cluster bombs out of about a million we left in southern Lebanon as a vengeful souvenir of the failed war. Amir Peretz, who preached involvement of the state in the welfare of its weaker segments, also bears the burden of responsibility for the culture of the lords establishing itself in our lives.
Therefore, let no Hebrew mother nor Hebrew father be surprised if in a few years, Gaydamak takes advantage of the state's betrayal of its citizens to reap the profits of his philanthropy business. Let no one in Israel be surprised that during elections, there will be masses who will want to reward him for his great generosity - whether as president, prime minister, or party chief. It does not matter whether he knows Hebrew or not. It does not matter who his backers are. On the day the Israelis conclude that their country has become a village, they will pave the way for the famed philanthropist to stand at its head.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Former PLO terrorist visits Flatbush yeshiva
Bethlehem’s Disciple Of Peace
Walid Shoebat, a onetime PLO terrorist, brings message of Jewish pride to Brooklyn yeshiva.
Steve Lipman - Staff Writer, The Jewish Week, November 10, 2006
The message delivered to a group of Jewish teens at the Yeshivah of Flatbush one afternoon this week was typical: study Torah, be proud Jews, speak up for Israel.
But the messenger was a little unusual.
Walid Shoebat was for several years, as he introduced himself to 500 day school students, “a Palestinian terrorist.”
A native of the West Bank town of Bethlehem, a Muslim by birth, a product of Palestinian schools that taught the inherent inferiority of Jews, he threw stones at Israelis, severely beat an Israeli soldier, threw a bomb atop a Bank Leumi in Israel and later served as a Palestinian activist in the United States.
Then he underwent a rare spiritual turnabout more than a decade ago, renouncing violence, embracing Christianity and touring the United States to preach his message of tolerance to Jewish and Christian audiences.
“What made you change?” asked one Yeshivah of Flatbush student, junior Joshua Twito, at the start of Shoebat’s presentation.
Over the next two-plus hours, Shoebat answered that question.
With graying hair and a middle-aged paunch, dressed in an open-collar beige shirt and brown jacket, alternating between shouts and whispers, quoting the Quran and Hebrew scriptures, Shoebat described how he tried to convert his Christian wife to Islam; how he read the Jewish Bible and the New Testament in order to find unfavorable depictions of the Jews; how he came away convinced that his Muslim upbringing had lied about Jews and Judaism and how he has spent the last decade in synagogues, churches and university auditoriums.
And he explained why.
“I fell in love with the Tanach,” he said, using the Hebrew acronym for the entire Jewish scripture. “I fell in love with Jewish heritage. I fell in love with Jewish art.
“I wanted,” he said, “to fight the Hamans of the world.”
Shoebat said he found enough truth in the New Testament to accept Christianity, but he became a devotee of Judaism, studying Jewish philosophy and watching tapes of “Fiddler on the Roof” more than 350 times.
Shoebat is now a U.S. citizen.
He is vague about his age (“middle 40s”), the number of years he has lived in the U.S. (“about 25”) and the location of his home (somewhere in California, under an assumed name). Shoebat travels with no apparent security detail or accompaniment, but is understandably circumspect about his whereabouts and travels. He refers in his writings to threats against his safety but offers no details.
With angry, still-Muslim relatives in the West Bank, too much openness about his life “is very dangerous to your health,” he said.
“I lost my family, my friends, my community, my culture, my money and my land,” he wrote in “Why I Left Jihad,” his 2005 book (Top Executive Media) that is part autobiography, part political polemic, part religious tract. “I am branded as a traitor by Arab Christians, by my own family and by the Muslims in my community.
“I choose to speak out because I know what is wrong,” he wrote.
“The Israeli Arab conflict is not about geography but about Jew hatred,” Shoebat states on the Web site (www.shoebat.com) of the foundation he established to further his work.
“The problem” in the Middle East “is not an issue of land,” he said at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. “It’s not an issue of occupation [of Arab lands by Israel]. It’s an issue of the occupation of minds of millions of Muslims.”
In other words, the teachings of the Quran, that “infidels” or individuals who leave Islam should be killed.
“What part of ‘kill’ doesn’t the West understand?” Shoebat asked rhetorically. “There are no allegories in the Koran.”
One member of the audience asked Shoebat if he could have reached his accommodating positions about Jews and Israel if he had remained a Muslim.
No, Shoebat said. “You don’t see the word ‘love’ in the Koran. It would have been impossible for me.”
Shoebat said he usually encounters more approval among Christian audiences than among Jewish, often liberal Jewish, audiences.
They are suspicious of him as a self-declared onetime terrorist, as an up-front Evangelical Christian, as the putative recipient of financial support from sympathetic Jews.
Yes, he was a terrorist.
Yes, he is a Christian.
No, he doesn’t receive any money from Jewish organizations, he said.
“All the opposition I got was from Jews,” Shoebat said, especially from Jews who favored the land-for-peace formula of the 1993 Oslo Accords.
“Giving land goes against the will of the God of Israel,” he said. “Giving land creates confidence for the enemy.”
Shoebat said he has met few like-minded Arab Muslims, and has not been able to change any minds.
“I am always asked, ‘How come you don’t speak to the Arabs?’” he said. “I answer, ‘It doesn’t work that way. You don’t go planting seeds on stones.’” Most Muslim Arabs, “blinded” by years of anti-Semitic teachings in schools and mosques, will not listen, he said.
“Our job is to change the Jews and the Americans,” Shoebat said.
Rabbi Avner Taler, faculty adviser of the Yeshivah of Flatbush Israel Awareness Committee and chair of the school’s Tanach Department, said the yeshiva brought Shoebat as a speaker to “present a person who’s been on the other side” of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. “He’s a chiddush [a new twist]. He presents a point of view that the kids don’t hear much.”
The program was brought to the Yeshivah of Flatbush through the efforts of alumnus Joey Sasson, who had heard Shoebat speak and felt his message was important for the Jewish community to hear. Sasson contacted YOF faculty member Rachel Winkler and her husband Nachum, who then served as liaisons in making the arrangements for the interaction between students and Shoebat and the community program later that night.
Joshua Twito, whose Israeli-born father lost a cousin in a terrorist attack near Beersheva about two years ago, said he was initially skeptical about hearing Shoebat. “We have the once-a-terrorist, always-a-terrorist mentality,” he said.
“He’s good,” Twito said afterwards. “He addressed the issues in a way that is conducive to the situation.” That is, Shoebat deals with anti-Semitism in Arabic and Islamic society.
But Twito said he left with no more optimism after listening to Shoebat.
“There’s only one of him,” he said.
Walid Shoebat, a onetime PLO terrorist, brings message of Jewish pride to Brooklyn yeshiva.
Steve Lipman - Staff Writer, The Jewish Week, November 10, 2006
The message delivered to a group of Jewish teens at the Yeshivah of Flatbush one afternoon this week was typical: study Torah, be proud Jews, speak up for Israel.
But the messenger was a little unusual.
Walid Shoebat was for several years, as he introduced himself to 500 day school students, “a Palestinian terrorist.”
A native of the West Bank town of Bethlehem, a Muslim by birth, a product of Palestinian schools that taught the inherent inferiority of Jews, he threw stones at Israelis, severely beat an Israeli soldier, threw a bomb atop a Bank Leumi in Israel and later served as a Palestinian activist in the United States.
Then he underwent a rare spiritual turnabout more than a decade ago, renouncing violence, embracing Christianity and touring the United States to preach his message of tolerance to Jewish and Christian audiences.
“What made you change?” asked one Yeshivah of Flatbush student, junior Joshua Twito, at the start of Shoebat’s presentation.
Over the next two-plus hours, Shoebat answered that question.
With graying hair and a middle-aged paunch, dressed in an open-collar beige shirt and brown jacket, alternating between shouts and whispers, quoting the Quran and Hebrew scriptures, Shoebat described how he tried to convert his Christian wife to Islam; how he read the Jewish Bible and the New Testament in order to find unfavorable depictions of the Jews; how he came away convinced that his Muslim upbringing had lied about Jews and Judaism and how he has spent the last decade in synagogues, churches and university auditoriums.
And he explained why.
“I fell in love with the Tanach,” he said, using the Hebrew acronym for the entire Jewish scripture. “I fell in love with Jewish heritage. I fell in love with Jewish art.
“I wanted,” he said, “to fight the Hamans of the world.”
Shoebat said he found enough truth in the New Testament to accept Christianity, but he became a devotee of Judaism, studying Jewish philosophy and watching tapes of “Fiddler on the Roof” more than 350 times.
Shoebat is now a U.S. citizen.
He is vague about his age (“middle 40s”), the number of years he has lived in the U.S. (“about 25”) and the location of his home (somewhere in California, under an assumed name). Shoebat travels with no apparent security detail or accompaniment, but is understandably circumspect about his whereabouts and travels. He refers in his writings to threats against his safety but offers no details.
With angry, still-Muslim relatives in the West Bank, too much openness about his life “is very dangerous to your health,” he said.
“I lost my family, my friends, my community, my culture, my money and my land,” he wrote in “Why I Left Jihad,” his 2005 book (Top Executive Media) that is part autobiography, part political polemic, part religious tract. “I am branded as a traitor by Arab Christians, by my own family and by the Muslims in my community.
“I choose to speak out because I know what is wrong,” he wrote.
“The Israeli Arab conflict is not about geography but about Jew hatred,” Shoebat states on the Web site (www.shoebat.com) of the foundation he established to further his work.
“The problem” in the Middle East “is not an issue of land,” he said at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. “It’s not an issue of occupation [of Arab lands by Israel]. It’s an issue of the occupation of minds of millions of Muslims.”
In other words, the teachings of the Quran, that “infidels” or individuals who leave Islam should be killed.
“What part of ‘kill’ doesn’t the West understand?” Shoebat asked rhetorically. “There are no allegories in the Koran.”
One member of the audience asked Shoebat if he could have reached his accommodating positions about Jews and Israel if he had remained a Muslim.
No, Shoebat said. “You don’t see the word ‘love’ in the Koran. It would have been impossible for me.”
Shoebat said he usually encounters more approval among Christian audiences than among Jewish, often liberal Jewish, audiences.
They are suspicious of him as a self-declared onetime terrorist, as an up-front Evangelical Christian, as the putative recipient of financial support from sympathetic Jews.
Yes, he was a terrorist.
Yes, he is a Christian.
No, he doesn’t receive any money from Jewish organizations, he said.
“All the opposition I got was from Jews,” Shoebat said, especially from Jews who favored the land-for-peace formula of the 1993 Oslo Accords.
“Giving land goes against the will of the God of Israel,” he said. “Giving land creates confidence for the enemy.”
Shoebat said he has met few like-minded Arab Muslims, and has not been able to change any minds.
“I am always asked, ‘How come you don’t speak to the Arabs?’” he said. “I answer, ‘It doesn’t work that way. You don’t go planting seeds on stones.’” Most Muslim Arabs, “blinded” by years of anti-Semitic teachings in schools and mosques, will not listen, he said.
“Our job is to change the Jews and the Americans,” Shoebat said.
Rabbi Avner Taler, faculty adviser of the Yeshivah of Flatbush Israel Awareness Committee and chair of the school’s Tanach Department, said the yeshiva brought Shoebat as a speaker to “present a person who’s been on the other side” of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. “He’s a chiddush [a new twist]. He presents a point of view that the kids don’t hear much.”
The program was brought to the Yeshivah of Flatbush through the efforts of alumnus Joey Sasson, who had heard Shoebat speak and felt his message was important for the Jewish community to hear. Sasson contacted YOF faculty member Rachel Winkler and her husband Nachum, who then served as liaisons in making the arrangements for the interaction between students and Shoebat and the community program later that night.
Joshua Twito, whose Israeli-born father lost a cousin in a terrorist attack near Beersheva about two years ago, said he was initially skeptical about hearing Shoebat. “We have the once-a-terrorist, always-a-terrorist mentality,” he said.
“He’s good,” Twito said afterwards. “He addressed the issues in a way that is conducive to the situation.” That is, Shoebat deals with anti-Semitism in Arabic and Islamic society.
But Twito said he left with no more optimism after listening to Shoebat.
“There’s only one of him,” he said.
Military foul-ups and the political echelons
'Strategic corporal' is in charge
Ha'aretz, Thursday, November 9, 2006
By Aluf Benn
The series of military foul-ups that has not stopped since the war in Lebanon, and reached a peak yesterday with the deadly shelling in Beit Hanun, is an indication that something is amiss in the political echelon's supervision over the Israel Defense Forces.
Time after time, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz have been forced "to express regret" for indiscriminate strikes on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, or dangerous friction between the Israel Air Force and German naval vessels off the Lebanese coast.
The defense minister's aides explain that in many instances, Peretz functions as a moderating influence by blocking IDF operational proposals and demonstrating willingness to take risks to alleviate the distress of the Palestinians. According to the aides, however, Peretz does not approve every act of shelling by IDF artillery units or every scrambling of IAF aircraft. His job, they say, is to determine policy.
One can understand this, but the outcome is that practical policy is being determined and implemented by the commander of the artillery battery, the officer in the field or an even lower-ranking military official. Ehud Barak called this phenomenon "the strategic corporal," whose shortcomings could ignite the entire Middle East.
Olmert and Peretz hurry to take responsibility, apologize and promise investigations and conclusions; but this is not enough. It would be best if they were to first think of the strategic objectives, and then formulate Israel's security policy and the operational directives for the IDF.
The problem is that it is difficult to identify such a strategy when one is so wrapped up in the ever-increasing frustration from the Qassam rocket fire. Olmert was questioned last week during a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on the situation in Gaza and the Qassam rocket fire.
Customarily, the right-wing MKs blamed it all on the disengagement, to which Olmert replied: "There is unprecedented international consensus for our actions. Three hundred terrorists were killed, and no one in the international community said a word. One can rant and rave and shout, but if we act wisely, we will be able to maintain our achievements and strike at more and more terrorists."
When national strategy boils down to counting the bodies of the enemy, it is a sure sign of failure. Olmert makes do with the world's silence, and fails to explain the objective of the IDF's operations in Gaza beyond the killing of "more and more terrorists."
If the prime minister's political objective is the toppling of the Hamas government, he would have been better off keeping a closer eye on the military and suspending the use of high-risk measures such as artillery fire on the eve of his trip to Washington, while Palestinian Authority officials negotiated replacing the Hamas government with a government of "technocrats."
But Olmert allowed the middle ranks of the army to dictate the shelling policy, and the "strategic corporal," or the artillery battery's faulty computer, have given the Hamas government a few more months in office.
Ha'aretz, Thursday, November 9, 2006
By Aluf Benn
The series of military foul-ups that has not stopped since the war in Lebanon, and reached a peak yesterday with the deadly shelling in Beit Hanun, is an indication that something is amiss in the political echelon's supervision over the Israel Defense Forces.
Time after time, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz have been forced "to express regret" for indiscriminate strikes on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, or dangerous friction between the Israel Air Force and German naval vessels off the Lebanese coast.
The defense minister's aides explain that in many instances, Peretz functions as a moderating influence by blocking IDF operational proposals and demonstrating willingness to take risks to alleviate the distress of the Palestinians. According to the aides, however, Peretz does not approve every act of shelling by IDF artillery units or every scrambling of IAF aircraft. His job, they say, is to determine policy.
One can understand this, but the outcome is that practical policy is being determined and implemented by the commander of the artillery battery, the officer in the field or an even lower-ranking military official. Ehud Barak called this phenomenon "the strategic corporal," whose shortcomings could ignite the entire Middle East.
Olmert and Peretz hurry to take responsibility, apologize and promise investigations and conclusions; but this is not enough. It would be best if they were to first think of the strategic objectives, and then formulate Israel's security policy and the operational directives for the IDF.
The problem is that it is difficult to identify such a strategy when one is so wrapped up in the ever-increasing frustration from the Qassam rocket fire. Olmert was questioned last week during a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on the situation in Gaza and the Qassam rocket fire.
Customarily, the right-wing MKs blamed it all on the disengagement, to which Olmert replied: "There is unprecedented international consensus for our actions. Three hundred terrorists were killed, and no one in the international community said a word. One can rant and rave and shout, but if we act wisely, we will be able to maintain our achievements and strike at more and more terrorists."
When national strategy boils down to counting the bodies of the enemy, it is a sure sign of failure. Olmert makes do with the world's silence, and fails to explain the objective of the IDF's operations in Gaza beyond the killing of "more and more terrorists."
If the prime minister's political objective is the toppling of the Hamas government, he would have been better off keeping a closer eye on the military and suspending the use of high-risk measures such as artillery fire on the eve of his trip to Washington, while Palestinian Authority officials negotiated replacing the Hamas government with a government of "technocrats."
But Olmert allowed the middle ranks of the army to dictate the shelling policy, and the "strategic corporal," or the artillery battery's faulty computer, have given the Hamas government a few more months in office.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
David Grossman: Squandering its miracle
David Grossman's speech at the Rabin memorial
Ha'aretz, November5, 2006
The annual memorial ceremony for Yitzhak Rabin is the moment when we pause for a while to remember Rabin the man, the leader. And we also take a look at ourselves, at Israeli society, its leadership, the national mood, the state of the peace process, at ourselves as individuals in the face of national events.
It is not easy to take a look at ourselves this year. There was a war, and Israel flexed its massive military muscle, but also exposed Israel's fragility. We discovered that our military might ultimately cannot be the only guarantee of our existence. Primarily, we have found that the crisis Israel is experiencing is far deeper than we had feared, in almost every way.
I am speaking here tonight as a person whose love for the land is overwhelming and complex, and yet it is unequivocal, and as one whose continuous covenant with the land has turned his personal calamity into a covenant of blood.
Advertisement
I am totally secular, and yet in my eyes the establishment and the very existence of the State of Israel is a miracle of sorts that happened to us as a nation - a political, national, human miracle.
I do not forget this for a single moment. Even when many things in the reality of our lives enrage and depress me, even when the miracle is broken down to routine and wretchedness, to corruption and cynicism, even when reality seems like nothing but a poor parody of this miracle, I always remember. And with these feelings, I address you tonight.
"Behold land, for we hath squandered," wrote the poet Saul Tchernikovsky in Tel Aviv in 1938. He lamented the burial of our young again and again in the soil of the Land of Israel. The death of young people is a horrible, ghastly waste.
But no less dreadful is the sense that for many years, the State of Israel has been squandering, not only the lives of its sons, but also its miracle; that grand and rare opportunity that history bestowed upon it, the opportunity to establish here a state that is efficient, democratic, which abides by Jewish and universal values; a state that would be a national home and haven, but not only a haven, also a place that would offer a new meaning to Jewish existence; a state that holds as an integral and essential part of its Jewish identity and its Jewish ethos, the observance of full equality and respect for its non-Jewish citizens.
Look at what befell us. Look what befell the young, bold, passionate country we had here, and how, as if it had undergone a quickened ageing process, Israel lurched from infancy and youth to a perpetual state of gripe, weakness and sourness.
How did this happen? When did we lose even the hope that we would eventually be able to live a different, better life? Moreover, how do we continue to watch from the side as though hypnotized by the insanity, rudeness, violence and racism that has overtaken our home?
And I ask you: How could it be that a people with such powers of creativity, renewal and vivacity as ours, a people that knew how to rise from the ashes time and again, finds itself today, despite its great military might, at such a state of laxity and inanity, a state where it is the victim once more, but this time its own victim, of its anxieties, its short-sightedness.
One of the most difficult outcomes of the recent war is the heightened realization that at this time there is no king in Israel, that our leadership is hollow. Our military and political leadership is hollow. I am not even talking about the obvious blunders in running the war, of the collapse of the home front, nor of the large-scale and small-time corruption.
I am talking about the fact that the people leading Israel today are unable to contact Israelis to their identity. Certainly not with the healthy, vitalizing and productive areas of this identity, with those areas of identity and memory and fundamental values that would give us hope and strength, that would be the antidote to the waning of mutual trust, of the bonds to the land, that would give some meaning to the exhausting and despairing struggle for existence.
The fundamental characteristics of the current Israeli leadership are primarily anxiety and intimidation, of the charade of power, the wink of the dirty deal, of selling out our most prized possessions. In this sense they are not true leaders, certainly they are not the leaders of a people in such a complicated position that has lost the way it so desperately needs. Sometimes it seems that the sound box of their self-importance, of their memories of history, of their vision, of what they really care for, exist only in the miniscule space between two headlines of a newspaper or between two investigations by the attorney general.
Look at those who lead us. Not all of them, of course, but many among them. Behold their petrified, suspicious, sweaty conduct. The conduct of advocates and scoundrels. It is preposterous to expect to hear wisdom emerge from them, that some vision or even just an original, truly creative, bold and ingenuous idea would emanate from them.
When was the last time a prime minister formulated or took a step that could open up a new horizon for Israelis, for a better future? When did he initiate a social or cultural or ideological move, instead of merely reacting feverishly to moves forced upon him by others?
Mister Prime Minister, I am not saying these words out of feelings of rage or revenge. I have waited long enough to avoid responding on impulse. You will not be able to dismiss my words tonight by saying a grieving man cannot be judged. Certainly I am grieving, but I am more pained than angry. This country and what you and your friends are doing to it pains me.
Trust me, your success is important to me, because the future of all of us depends on our ability to act. Yitzhak Rabin took the road of peace with the Palestinians, not because he possessed great affection for them or their leaders. Even then, as you recall, common belief was that we had no partner and we had nothing to discuss with them.
Rabin decided to act, because he discerned very wisely that Israeli society would not be able to sustain itself endlessly in a state of an unresolved conflict. He realized long before many others that life in a climate of violence, occupation, terror, anxiety and hopelessness, extracts a price Israel cannot afford. This is all relevant today, even more so. We will soon talk about the partner that we do or do not have, but before that, let us take a look at ourselves.
We have been living in this struggle for more than 100 years. We, the citizens of this conflict, have been born into war and raised in it, and in a certain sense indoctrinated by it. Maybe this is why we sometimes think that this madness in which we live for over 100 years is the only real thing, the only life for us, and that we do not have the option or even the right to aspire for a different life.
By our sword we shall live and by our sword we shall die and the sword shall devour forever. Maybe this would explain the indifference with which we accept the utter failure of the peace process, a failure that has lasted for years and claims more and more victims.
This could explain also the lack of reaction by most of us to the harsh blow to democracy caused by the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as a senior minister with the support of the Labor Party - the appointment of a habitual pyromaniac as director of the nation's firefighters.
And these are partly the cause of Israel's quick descent into the heartless, essentially brutal treatment of its poor and suffering. This indifference to the fate of the hungry, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, all those who are weak, this equanimity of the State of Israel in the face of human trafficking or the appalling employment conditions of our foreign workers, which border on slavery, to the deeply ingrained institutionalized racism against the Arab minority.
When this takes place here so naturally, without shock, without protest, as though it were obvious, that we would never be able to get the wheel back on track, when all of this takes place, I begin to fear that even if peace were to arrive tomorrow, and even if we ever regained some normalcy, we may have lost our chance for full recovery.
The calamity that struck my family and myself with the falling of our son, Uri, does not grant me any additional rights in the public discourse, but I believe that the experience of facing death and the loss brings with it a sobriety and lucidity, at least regarding the distinction between the important and the unimportant, between the attainable and the unattainable.
Any reasonable person in Israel, and I will say in Palestine too, knows exactly the outline of a possible solution to the conflict between the two peoples. Any reasonable person here and over there knows deep in their heart the difference between dreams and the heart's desire, between what is possible and what is not possible by the conclusion of negotiations. Anyone who does not know, who refuses to acknowledge this, is already not a partner, be he Jew or Arab, is entrapped in his hermetic fanaticism, and is therefore not a partner.
Let us take a look at those who are meant to be our partners. The Palestinians have elected Hamas to lead them, Hamas who refuses to negotiate with us, refuses even to recognize us. What can be done in such a position? Keep strangling them more and more, keep mowing down hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom are innocent civilians like us? Kill them and get killed for all eternity?
Turn to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, address them over the heads of Hamas, appeal to their moderates, those who like you and I oppose Hamas and its ways, turn to the Palestinian people, speak to their deep grief and wounds, acknowledge their ongoing suffering.
Nothing would be taken away from you or Israel's standing in future negotiations. Our hearts will only open up to one another slightly, and this has a tremendous power, the power of a force majeur. The power of simple human compassion, particularly in this a state of deadlock and dread. Just once, look at them not through the sights of a gun, and not behind a closed roadblock. You will see there a people that is tortured no less than us. An oppressed, occupied people bereft of hope.
Certainly, the Palestinians are also to blame for the impasse, certainly they played their role in the failure of the peace process. But take a look at them from a different perspective, not only at the radicals in their midst, not only at those who share interests with our own radicals. Take a look at the overwhelming majority of this miserable people, whose fate is entangled with our own, whether we like it or not.
Go to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, do not search all the time for reasons for not to talk to them. You backed down on the unilateral convergence, and that's a good thing, but do not leave a vacuum. It will be occupied instantly with violence, destruction. Talk to them, make them an offer their moderates can accept. They argue far more than we are shown in the media. Make them an offer so that they are forced to choose whether they accept it, or whether they prefer to remain hostage to fanatical Islam.
Approach them with the bravest and most serious plan Israel can offer. With the offer than any reasonable Palestinian and Israeli knows is the boundary of their refusal and our concession. There is no time. Should you delay, in a short while we will look back with longing at the amateur Palestinian terror. We will hit our heads and yell at our failure to exercise all of our mental flexibility, all of the Israeli ingenuity to uproot our enemies from their self-entrapment. We have no choice and they have no choice. And a peace of no choice should be approached with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of no choice. And those who believe we do have a choice, or that time is on our side do not comprehend the deeply dangerous processes already in motion.
Maybe, Mr. Prime Minister, you need to be reminded, that if an Arab leader is sending a peace signal, be it the slightest and most hesitant, you must accept it, you must test immediately its sincerity and seriousness. You do not have the moral right not to respond.
You owe it to those whom you would ask to sacrifice their lives should another war break out. Therefore, if President Assad says that Syria wants peace, even if you don't believe him, and we are all suspicious of him, you must offer to meet him that same day.
Don't wait a single day. When you launched the last war you did not even wait one hour. You charged with full force, with the complete arsenal, with the full power of destruction. Why, when a glimmer of peace surfaces, must you reject it immediately, dissolve it? What have you got to lose? Are you suspicious of it? Go and offer him such terms that would expose his schemes. Offer him a peace process that would last over several years, and only at its conclusion, and provided he meets all the conditions and restrictions, will he get back the Golan. Commit him to a prolonged process, act so that his people also become aware of this possibility. Help the moderates, who must exist there as well. Try to shape reality. Not only serve as its collaborator. This is what you were elected to do.
Certainly, not all depends on our actions. There are major powers active in our region and in the world. Some, like Iran, like radical Islam, seek our doom and despite that, so much depends on what we do, on what we become.
Disagreements today between right and left are not that significant. The vast majority of Israel's citizens understand this already, and know what the outline for the resolution of the conflict would look like. Most of us understand, therefore, that the land would be divided, that a Palestinian state would be established.
Why, then, do we keep exhausting ourselves with the internal bickering that has gone on for 40 years? Why does our political leadership continue to reflect the position of the radicals and not that held by the majority of the public? It is better to reach national consensus before circumstances or God forbid another war force us to reach it. If we do it, we would save ourselves years of decline and error, years when we will cry time and again: "Behold land, for we hath squandered."
From where I stand right now, I beseech, I call on all those who listen, the young who came back from the war, who know they are the ones to be called upon to pay the price of the next war, on citizens, Jew and Arab, people on the right and the left, the secular, the religious, stop for a moment, take a look into the abyss. Think of how close we are to losing all that we have created here. Ask yourselves if this is not the time to get a grip
Ha'aretz, November5, 2006
The annual memorial ceremony for Yitzhak Rabin is the moment when we pause for a while to remember Rabin the man, the leader. And we also take a look at ourselves, at Israeli society, its leadership, the national mood, the state of the peace process, at ourselves as individuals in the face of national events.
It is not easy to take a look at ourselves this year. There was a war, and Israel flexed its massive military muscle, but also exposed Israel's fragility. We discovered that our military might ultimately cannot be the only guarantee of our existence. Primarily, we have found that the crisis Israel is experiencing is far deeper than we had feared, in almost every way.
I am speaking here tonight as a person whose love for the land is overwhelming and complex, and yet it is unequivocal, and as one whose continuous covenant with the land has turned his personal calamity into a covenant of blood.
Advertisement
I am totally secular, and yet in my eyes the establishment and the very existence of the State of Israel is a miracle of sorts that happened to us as a nation - a political, national, human miracle.
I do not forget this for a single moment. Even when many things in the reality of our lives enrage and depress me, even when the miracle is broken down to routine and wretchedness, to corruption and cynicism, even when reality seems like nothing but a poor parody of this miracle, I always remember. And with these feelings, I address you tonight.
"Behold land, for we hath squandered," wrote the poet Saul Tchernikovsky in Tel Aviv in 1938. He lamented the burial of our young again and again in the soil of the Land of Israel. The death of young people is a horrible, ghastly waste.
But no less dreadful is the sense that for many years, the State of Israel has been squandering, not only the lives of its sons, but also its miracle; that grand and rare opportunity that history bestowed upon it, the opportunity to establish here a state that is efficient, democratic, which abides by Jewish and universal values; a state that would be a national home and haven, but not only a haven, also a place that would offer a new meaning to Jewish existence; a state that holds as an integral and essential part of its Jewish identity and its Jewish ethos, the observance of full equality and respect for its non-Jewish citizens.
Look at what befell us. Look what befell the young, bold, passionate country we had here, and how, as if it had undergone a quickened ageing process, Israel lurched from infancy and youth to a perpetual state of gripe, weakness and sourness.
How did this happen? When did we lose even the hope that we would eventually be able to live a different, better life? Moreover, how do we continue to watch from the side as though hypnotized by the insanity, rudeness, violence and racism that has overtaken our home?
And I ask you: How could it be that a people with such powers of creativity, renewal and vivacity as ours, a people that knew how to rise from the ashes time and again, finds itself today, despite its great military might, at such a state of laxity and inanity, a state where it is the victim once more, but this time its own victim, of its anxieties, its short-sightedness.
One of the most difficult outcomes of the recent war is the heightened realization that at this time there is no king in Israel, that our leadership is hollow. Our military and political leadership is hollow. I am not even talking about the obvious blunders in running the war, of the collapse of the home front, nor of the large-scale and small-time corruption.
I am talking about the fact that the people leading Israel today are unable to contact Israelis to their identity. Certainly not with the healthy, vitalizing and productive areas of this identity, with those areas of identity and memory and fundamental values that would give us hope and strength, that would be the antidote to the waning of mutual trust, of the bonds to the land, that would give some meaning to the exhausting and despairing struggle for existence.
The fundamental characteristics of the current Israeli leadership are primarily anxiety and intimidation, of the charade of power, the wink of the dirty deal, of selling out our most prized possessions. In this sense they are not true leaders, certainly they are not the leaders of a people in such a complicated position that has lost the way it so desperately needs. Sometimes it seems that the sound box of their self-importance, of their memories of history, of their vision, of what they really care for, exist only in the miniscule space between two headlines of a newspaper or between two investigations by the attorney general.
Look at those who lead us. Not all of them, of course, but many among them. Behold their petrified, suspicious, sweaty conduct. The conduct of advocates and scoundrels. It is preposterous to expect to hear wisdom emerge from them, that some vision or even just an original, truly creative, bold and ingenuous idea would emanate from them.
When was the last time a prime minister formulated or took a step that could open up a new horizon for Israelis, for a better future? When did he initiate a social or cultural or ideological move, instead of merely reacting feverishly to moves forced upon him by others?
Mister Prime Minister, I am not saying these words out of feelings of rage or revenge. I have waited long enough to avoid responding on impulse. You will not be able to dismiss my words tonight by saying a grieving man cannot be judged. Certainly I am grieving, but I am more pained than angry. This country and what you and your friends are doing to it pains me.
Trust me, your success is important to me, because the future of all of us depends on our ability to act. Yitzhak Rabin took the road of peace with the Palestinians, not because he possessed great affection for them or their leaders. Even then, as you recall, common belief was that we had no partner and we had nothing to discuss with them.
Rabin decided to act, because he discerned very wisely that Israeli society would not be able to sustain itself endlessly in a state of an unresolved conflict. He realized long before many others that life in a climate of violence, occupation, terror, anxiety and hopelessness, extracts a price Israel cannot afford. This is all relevant today, even more so. We will soon talk about the partner that we do or do not have, but before that, let us take a look at ourselves.
We have been living in this struggle for more than 100 years. We, the citizens of this conflict, have been born into war and raised in it, and in a certain sense indoctrinated by it. Maybe this is why we sometimes think that this madness in which we live for over 100 years is the only real thing, the only life for us, and that we do not have the option or even the right to aspire for a different life.
By our sword we shall live and by our sword we shall die and the sword shall devour forever. Maybe this would explain the indifference with which we accept the utter failure of the peace process, a failure that has lasted for years and claims more and more victims.
This could explain also the lack of reaction by most of us to the harsh blow to democracy caused by the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as a senior minister with the support of the Labor Party - the appointment of a habitual pyromaniac as director of the nation's firefighters.
And these are partly the cause of Israel's quick descent into the heartless, essentially brutal treatment of its poor and suffering. This indifference to the fate of the hungry, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, all those who are weak, this equanimity of the State of Israel in the face of human trafficking or the appalling employment conditions of our foreign workers, which border on slavery, to the deeply ingrained institutionalized racism against the Arab minority.
When this takes place here so naturally, without shock, without protest, as though it were obvious, that we would never be able to get the wheel back on track, when all of this takes place, I begin to fear that even if peace were to arrive tomorrow, and even if we ever regained some normalcy, we may have lost our chance for full recovery.
The calamity that struck my family and myself with the falling of our son, Uri, does not grant me any additional rights in the public discourse, but I believe that the experience of facing death and the loss brings with it a sobriety and lucidity, at least regarding the distinction between the important and the unimportant, between the attainable and the unattainable.
Any reasonable person in Israel, and I will say in Palestine too, knows exactly the outline of a possible solution to the conflict between the two peoples. Any reasonable person here and over there knows deep in their heart the difference between dreams and the heart's desire, between what is possible and what is not possible by the conclusion of negotiations. Anyone who does not know, who refuses to acknowledge this, is already not a partner, be he Jew or Arab, is entrapped in his hermetic fanaticism, and is therefore not a partner.
Let us take a look at those who are meant to be our partners. The Palestinians have elected Hamas to lead them, Hamas who refuses to negotiate with us, refuses even to recognize us. What can be done in such a position? Keep strangling them more and more, keep mowing down hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom are innocent civilians like us? Kill them and get killed for all eternity?
Turn to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, address them over the heads of Hamas, appeal to their moderates, those who like you and I oppose Hamas and its ways, turn to the Palestinian people, speak to their deep grief and wounds, acknowledge their ongoing suffering.
Nothing would be taken away from you or Israel's standing in future negotiations. Our hearts will only open up to one another slightly, and this has a tremendous power, the power of a force majeur. The power of simple human compassion, particularly in this a state of deadlock and dread. Just once, look at them not through the sights of a gun, and not behind a closed roadblock. You will see there a people that is tortured no less than us. An oppressed, occupied people bereft of hope.
Certainly, the Palestinians are also to blame for the impasse, certainly they played their role in the failure of the peace process. But take a look at them from a different perspective, not only at the radicals in their midst, not only at those who share interests with our own radicals. Take a look at the overwhelming majority of this miserable people, whose fate is entangled with our own, whether we like it or not.
Go to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, do not search all the time for reasons for not to talk to them. You backed down on the unilateral convergence, and that's a good thing, but do not leave a vacuum. It will be occupied instantly with violence, destruction. Talk to them, make them an offer their moderates can accept. They argue far more than we are shown in the media. Make them an offer so that they are forced to choose whether they accept it, or whether they prefer to remain hostage to fanatical Islam.
Approach them with the bravest and most serious plan Israel can offer. With the offer than any reasonable Palestinian and Israeli knows is the boundary of their refusal and our concession. There is no time. Should you delay, in a short while we will look back with longing at the amateur Palestinian terror. We will hit our heads and yell at our failure to exercise all of our mental flexibility, all of the Israeli ingenuity to uproot our enemies from their self-entrapment. We have no choice and they have no choice. And a peace of no choice should be approached with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of no choice. And those who believe we do have a choice, or that time is on our side do not comprehend the deeply dangerous processes already in motion.
Maybe, Mr. Prime Minister, you need to be reminded, that if an Arab leader is sending a peace signal, be it the slightest and most hesitant, you must accept it, you must test immediately its sincerity and seriousness. You do not have the moral right not to respond.
You owe it to those whom you would ask to sacrifice their lives should another war break out. Therefore, if President Assad says that Syria wants peace, even if you don't believe him, and we are all suspicious of him, you must offer to meet him that same day.
Don't wait a single day. When you launched the last war you did not even wait one hour. You charged with full force, with the complete arsenal, with the full power of destruction. Why, when a glimmer of peace surfaces, must you reject it immediately, dissolve it? What have you got to lose? Are you suspicious of it? Go and offer him such terms that would expose his schemes. Offer him a peace process that would last over several years, and only at its conclusion, and provided he meets all the conditions and restrictions, will he get back the Golan. Commit him to a prolonged process, act so that his people also become aware of this possibility. Help the moderates, who must exist there as well. Try to shape reality. Not only serve as its collaborator. This is what you were elected to do.
Certainly, not all depends on our actions. There are major powers active in our region and in the world. Some, like Iran, like radical Islam, seek our doom and despite that, so much depends on what we do, on what we become.
Disagreements today between right and left are not that significant. The vast majority of Israel's citizens understand this already, and know what the outline for the resolution of the conflict would look like. Most of us understand, therefore, that the land would be divided, that a Palestinian state would be established.
Why, then, do we keep exhausting ourselves with the internal bickering that has gone on for 40 years? Why does our political leadership continue to reflect the position of the radicals and not that held by the majority of the public? It is better to reach national consensus before circumstances or God forbid another war force us to reach it. If we do it, we would save ourselves years of decline and error, years when we will cry time and again: "Behold land, for we hath squandered."
From where I stand right now, I beseech, I call on all those who listen, the young who came back from the war, who know they are the ones to be called upon to pay the price of the next war, on citizens, Jew and Arab, people on the right and the left, the secular, the religious, stop for a moment, take a look into the abyss. Think of how close we are to losing all that we have created here. Ask yourselves if this is not the time to get a grip
Once a chained woman, always a chained woman..
Rabbis cancel conference on 'chained women'
Ha'aretz, November 5, 2006
By Amiram Barkat
Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar last week canceled the conference on women whose husbands refuse to grant them a divorce (agunot), which was due to take place in Jerusalem on Tuesday, at the order of ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.
Amar had obtained Elyashiv's approval for the holding the Chief Rabbinate's first conference on this issue. However, ultra-Orthodox figures in the Rabbinic Courts persuaded Elyashiv to withdraw his approval.
Dozens of chief rabbis, rabbinic court heads and rabbinic judges from the Diaspora had been invited to the conference, and some have already arrived in Israel.
Rabbi Amar had initiated the project to find ways of helping women whose husbands refuse to divorce them, and women who cannot divorce because their husbands are missing and not proven dead. Conference participants were to debate whether to impose economic and social sanctions on divorce objectors without infringing on halakhic principles.
Three months ago, Amar persuaded the Haredi sage Elyashiv to approve the conference. Elyashiv conditioned his consent on banning women from the conference.
Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, head of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of Women's Status in the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, was shocked by the decision to cancel the conference, she told Haaretz, although she doubted it would be a turning point in the rabbinical courts' treatment of women. "The conference's importance was in its existence - and canceling it indicates more than anything else the sorry state of Orthodox Judaism, which cannot deal with such a basic and humane issue," she said.
Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, the director general of Israel's rabbinical courts, who coordinated the preparations for the conference, was also displeased by the conference's cancelation. "It was a blessed initiative. It's sad that months of efforts will be lost," Ben-Dahan said.
He said he did not know who caused the conference's cancelation and why. However, Haaretz has learned that it was dictated by rabbinic court figures, who object to the efforts to improve the circumstances of women who cannot get a divorce. Supreme Rabbinical Court judges Rabbi Hagai Izirer and Rabbi Avraham Sherman both advocate strengthening the husband's and rabbinical court's status in divorce cases. Izirer even supports authorizing the rabbinical court to cancel a divorce. Thus children born to a woman after she has divorced could turn, retroactively, into bastards.
Izirer and Sherman spearheaded a campaign to pressure Diaspora rabbis to refuse the invitation to the conference.
Elyashiv's consultant, Haim Cohen, is also believed to have had a part in changing the rabbi's mind.
Ha'aretz, November 5, 2006
By Amiram Barkat
Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar last week canceled the conference on women whose husbands refuse to grant them a divorce (agunot), which was due to take place in Jerusalem on Tuesday, at the order of ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.
Amar had obtained Elyashiv's approval for the holding the Chief Rabbinate's first conference on this issue. However, ultra-Orthodox figures in the Rabbinic Courts persuaded Elyashiv to withdraw his approval.
Dozens of chief rabbis, rabbinic court heads and rabbinic judges from the Diaspora had been invited to the conference, and some have already arrived in Israel.
Rabbi Amar had initiated the project to find ways of helping women whose husbands refuse to divorce them, and women who cannot divorce because their husbands are missing and not proven dead. Conference participants were to debate whether to impose economic and social sanctions on divorce objectors without infringing on halakhic principles.
Three months ago, Amar persuaded the Haredi sage Elyashiv to approve the conference. Elyashiv conditioned his consent on banning women from the conference.
Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, head of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of Women's Status in the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, was shocked by the decision to cancel the conference, she told Haaretz, although she doubted it would be a turning point in the rabbinical courts' treatment of women. "The conference's importance was in its existence - and canceling it indicates more than anything else the sorry state of Orthodox Judaism, which cannot deal with such a basic and humane issue," she said.
Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, the director general of Israel's rabbinical courts, who coordinated the preparations for the conference, was also displeased by the conference's cancelation. "It was a blessed initiative. It's sad that months of efforts will be lost," Ben-Dahan said.
He said he did not know who caused the conference's cancelation and why. However, Haaretz has learned that it was dictated by rabbinic court figures, who object to the efforts to improve the circumstances of women who cannot get a divorce. Supreme Rabbinical Court judges Rabbi Hagai Izirer and Rabbi Avraham Sherman both advocate strengthening the husband's and rabbinical court's status in divorce cases. Izirer even supports authorizing the rabbinical court to cancel a divorce. Thus children born to a woman after she has divorced could turn, retroactively, into bastards.
Izirer and Sherman spearheaded a campaign to pressure Diaspora rabbis to refuse the invitation to the conference.
Elyashiv's consultant, Haim Cohen, is also believed to have had a part in changing the rabbi's mind.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Another snafu during the Second Lebanon War
Key data withheld from army officers during Lebanon war
By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents, November 3, 2006
Senior Northern Command and Division 91 officers were not privy to essential intelligence information regarding Hezbollah's deployment prior to the second Lebanon War.
The intelligence, which was available to the Israel Defense Forces, included accurate information about the locations of Hezbollah bunkers and positions, as well as the internal structure of such positions.
The officers were aware that such information existed, but were prevented from accessing it by the Intelligence Directorate's Committee on Source Security, arguing that the information was secret. Military Intelligence decided that the information would only be made available in the event of a war.
Officers' demands to gain access to information on routine security preparations that could counter Hezbollah raids inside the border fence were also rejected, and led to repeated and heated arguments among various units.
The information on Hezbollah positions was also withheld from the units during the war itself. Although there was a plan to transfer the data, which was stored in sealed boxes, to relevant units during a war, it was not carried out in time.
The initial boxes of intelligence reached the division command only a week after the initial encounter between an elite IDF unit and Hezbollah guerrillas inside a bunker (on July 19). But even then, it was difficult to adapt the intelligence to the immediate needs of the unit fighting there.
By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents, November 3, 2006
Senior Northern Command and Division 91 officers were not privy to essential intelligence information regarding Hezbollah's deployment prior to the second Lebanon War.
The intelligence, which was available to the Israel Defense Forces, included accurate information about the locations of Hezbollah bunkers and positions, as well as the internal structure of such positions.
The officers were aware that such information existed, but were prevented from accessing it by the Intelligence Directorate's Committee on Source Security, arguing that the information was secret. Military Intelligence decided that the information would only be made available in the event of a war.
Officers' demands to gain access to information on routine security preparations that could counter Hezbollah raids inside the border fence were also rejected, and led to repeated and heated arguments among various units.
The information on Hezbollah positions was also withheld from the units during the war itself. Although there was a plan to transfer the data, which was stored in sealed boxes, to relevant units during a war, it was not carried out in time.
The initial boxes of intelligence reached the division command only a week after the initial encounter between an elite IDF unit and Hezbollah guerrillas inside a bunker (on July 19). But even then, it was difficult to adapt the intelligence to the immediate needs of the unit fighting there.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Ruthie - the giraffe - looking for a mate...
Qalqilya singleton looking for Israeli stud
Yediot, Ronny Shaked Published: 11.02.06, 14:18
Ruthie the giraffe has been wandering around with a broken heart ever since her mate died in 2002. The Ramat Gan Safari is full of eager candidates but due to administrative squabbling poor Ruthie is still waiting
They say it's hard to find a good man. Apparently it's even more difficult to find a good giraffe. Just ask Ruthie, the Qalqilya Zoo's resident female giraffe.
"I don't know who named her Ruthie," said chief veterinarian Sami Hadjar, "I got her six-seven years ago. She was born in 1995, we paid
15,000 dollars to bring here from South Africa. We also brought her a mate, named Brownie."
But then, at the height of the Intifada in April 2002 the IDF launched operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank. Brownie panicked from the noise and started running around his cage hysterically, eventually banging his head on a metal rod and collapsing. "When we came to the zoo the next afternoon we found Brownie dead and Ruthie standing next to him, sad," said Hadjar.
he Qalqilya Zoo was given to the Palestinians by the Civil Administration in the late 1970's and since its establishment maintained good relations with its Israli counterparts, especially the Ramat-Gan Safari. However since the breakout of the Intifada cooperation between the establishments has declined.
"An adult giraffe costs 20,000 dollars," says Hadjar, at a loss for how to cheer Ruthie up, "who has that kind of money these days? So I called the Ramat-Gan Safari and they said 'sure, no problem, send Ruthie over for a few months, our males will know what to do.' But their condition was that they weren't to be held responsible if Ruthie became ill. We said no and asked to bring one of their giraffes here, they said no."
And so for now Ruthie must wait alone, anyone who happens to know a nice, well-read single male giraffe (no smokers please) who's ready to settle down and likes sunsets and Acacia leaves please contact the Qalqilya zoo for a shiduch.
Yediot, Ronny Shaked Published: 11.02.06, 14:18
Ruthie the giraffe has been wandering around with a broken heart ever since her mate died in 2002. The Ramat Gan Safari is full of eager candidates but due to administrative squabbling poor Ruthie is still waiting
They say it's hard to find a good man. Apparently it's even more difficult to find a good giraffe. Just ask Ruthie, the Qalqilya Zoo's resident female giraffe.
"I don't know who named her Ruthie," said chief veterinarian Sami Hadjar, "I got her six-seven years ago. She was born in 1995, we paid
15,000 dollars to bring here from South Africa. We also brought her a mate, named Brownie."
But then, at the height of the Intifada in April 2002 the IDF launched operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank. Brownie panicked from the noise and started running around his cage hysterically, eventually banging his head on a metal rod and collapsing. "When we came to the zoo the next afternoon we found Brownie dead and Ruthie standing next to him, sad," said Hadjar.
he Qalqilya Zoo was given to the Palestinians by the Civil Administration in the late 1970's and since its establishment maintained good relations with its Israli counterparts, especially the Ramat-Gan Safari. However since the breakout of the Intifada cooperation between the establishments has declined.
"An adult giraffe costs 20,000 dollars," says Hadjar, at a loss for how to cheer Ruthie up, "who has that kind of money these days? So I called the Ramat-Gan Safari and they said 'sure, no problem, send Ruthie over for a few months, our males will know what to do.' But their condition was that they weren't to be held responsible if Ruthie became ill. We said no and asked to bring one of their giraffes here, they said no."
And so for now Ruthie must wait alone, anyone who happens to know a nice, well-read single male giraffe (no smokers please) who's ready to settle down and likes sunsets and Acacia leaves please contact the Qalqilya zoo for a shiduch.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Our legal mess - background
The collapse of Israel's legal system
Daniel Doron, THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 27, 2006
The recent transition at Israel's Supreme Court has generated kudos for its outgoing president Justice Aharon Barak, a legal genius, it is said. But even among those praising him one could hear voices warning of a crisis that threatens the viability of the legal system he led.
As in all our public systems, too ambitious an agenda, too many tasks (many conflicting) and the consequent dependence on huge inefficient, wasteful and sometimes corrupt bureaucracies lead to disarray. Unfortunately, our legal mandarins took ages to recognize the crisis, either because they are so preoccupied with mending the world or are blinded by hubris. They are now moving so slowly to address the crisis that it is becoming acute.
If you sue someone for breaking a contract or inflicting harm, you should prepare for years of litigation at a huge cost. If you win, the judgment is often unenforceable. Excessive legislation, judgments that encourage further litigation and gross inefficiency block the legal system with millions of cases. Delay in delivering justice increases contempt for the law and encourages lawlessness. Lawyers make a mint from this and have no incentive to reform. The economy, however, is paying heavily in damages and risk premiums.
It is not only justice Barak's insistence that everything is judicable and that practically everyone is entitled to standing on any matter that swamped the courts with cases submitted by a people that is already too litigious. The root of the problem is in our legal elite's Greco-Christian legal philosophy (reinvigorated during the Enlightenment and given populist sanction by The French Revolution) that conceives of human rights in vague Platonic abstractions. It then tries to concretize and enforce these abstractions through the coercive instruments of the state.
But "The State's" power rests on politics. It therefore represents not a mythical "common interest" (mythical because communities are marked by their different interests - hence politics - rather than by "communality") but mostly particular, vested interests. These tend to encroach on individual rights. Therefore courts are asked to intervene so often to protect them.
DESPITE THEIR protestations our jurists seem to confuse the enforcement of law with doing justice. Barak allowed judges to interpret the meaning of contracts rather than stick to their language, presumably because such interpretation would be more "just." But this only increased uncertainty and confusion at great economic cost.
Moreover, under the guise of interpreting the basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty judges often promote a private conception of justice. Since all Jews, and especially our Knesset members, are equally eager to pursue justice, small wonder that our legislators and our Justice Ministry enact laws in quantities that no sane society or its legal system can absorb or enforce.
Our jurists also tend to believe that laws can cure all of society's ills. Little thought is given to their suitability to their purpose, to their unintended consequences and to whether they can be enforced economically and evenly. Cost and practicality are generally considered vulgar when it comes to the pursuit of justice.
The abstract human rights that our jurists adore are a chimera really. Governments have habitually interpreted and perverted such rights as those embodied in the Law on Human Dignity and Liberty. Only property rights can give real substance to human rights by granting individuals and their voluntary associations economic power to resist the law's delay and the insolence of office.
UNFORTUNATELY, our legal system either neglects or is contemptuous of concrete property rights, while adulating an ill defined abstract notion of "equality." The remarkable framers of the US constitution (inspired in part by the Jewish tradition that was embodied in the institution of the Jubilee, and by our sages insistence that "a poor man is like a dead man" because he lacked the real rights granted by property) wisely considered property rights as the most fundamental, concrete right on which all other rights must rest. For only in economic prosperity can a civil society fashion and maintain the voluntary associations that counterbalance the coercive power of The State, so readily abused.
This is why the American framers, especially James Madison insisted that a society that wants to protect freedom of choice must oppose a mechanical conception of equality (a Sodom's Bed really) and nurture a creative inequality and its outcome: property rights.
Such protection, Madison insisted, is "the first object of government."
Justice Barak and his esteemed colleagues do of course acknowledge the importance of property rights. But Barak considers them as deriving from "the central" abstract right of "Human Dignity and Liberty." Our basic law does not, Barak affirms, "define such a right" as property rights. Therefore the protection of such rights is dependent on judges who are mostly hostile to them and to competition. Many judges also lack the economic understanding to realize that without firm property rights and competition there can be no market exchange or a useful mechanism of pricing, the two essential attributes of a modern economy. Worse, most are infected with the socialist Zionist ethos that considered profit exploitation and property iniquitous. They are therefore not eager to protect such rights.
It will take a great educational effort to change these basic attitudes that made Israel economically lame. Meanwhile there are several managerial and procedural reforms that can be pursued to make our legal system a bit more efficient.
But first we must acknowledge that the crisis is severe and costly.
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
Daniel Doron, THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 27, 2006
The recent transition at Israel's Supreme Court has generated kudos for its outgoing president Justice Aharon Barak, a legal genius, it is said. But even among those praising him one could hear voices warning of a crisis that threatens the viability of the legal system he led.
As in all our public systems, too ambitious an agenda, too many tasks (many conflicting) and the consequent dependence on huge inefficient, wasteful and sometimes corrupt bureaucracies lead to disarray. Unfortunately, our legal mandarins took ages to recognize the crisis, either because they are so preoccupied with mending the world or are blinded by hubris. They are now moving so slowly to address the crisis that it is becoming acute.
If you sue someone for breaking a contract or inflicting harm, you should prepare for years of litigation at a huge cost. If you win, the judgment is often unenforceable. Excessive legislation, judgments that encourage further litigation and gross inefficiency block the legal system with millions of cases. Delay in delivering justice increases contempt for the law and encourages lawlessness. Lawyers make a mint from this and have no incentive to reform. The economy, however, is paying heavily in damages and risk premiums.
It is not only justice Barak's insistence that everything is judicable and that practically everyone is entitled to standing on any matter that swamped the courts with cases submitted by a people that is already too litigious. The root of the problem is in our legal elite's Greco-Christian legal philosophy (reinvigorated during the Enlightenment and given populist sanction by The French Revolution) that conceives of human rights in vague Platonic abstractions. It then tries to concretize and enforce these abstractions through the coercive instruments of the state.
But "The State's" power rests on politics. It therefore represents not a mythical "common interest" (mythical because communities are marked by their different interests - hence politics - rather than by "communality") but mostly particular, vested interests. These tend to encroach on individual rights. Therefore courts are asked to intervene so often to protect them.
DESPITE THEIR protestations our jurists seem to confuse the enforcement of law with doing justice. Barak allowed judges to interpret the meaning of contracts rather than stick to their language, presumably because such interpretation would be more "just." But this only increased uncertainty and confusion at great economic cost.
Moreover, under the guise of interpreting the basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty judges often promote a private conception of justice. Since all Jews, and especially our Knesset members, are equally eager to pursue justice, small wonder that our legislators and our Justice Ministry enact laws in quantities that no sane society or its legal system can absorb or enforce.
Our jurists also tend to believe that laws can cure all of society's ills. Little thought is given to their suitability to their purpose, to their unintended consequences and to whether they can be enforced economically and evenly. Cost and practicality are generally considered vulgar when it comes to the pursuit of justice.
The abstract human rights that our jurists adore are a chimera really. Governments have habitually interpreted and perverted such rights as those embodied in the Law on Human Dignity and Liberty. Only property rights can give real substance to human rights by granting individuals and their voluntary associations economic power to resist the law's delay and the insolence of office.
UNFORTUNATELY, our legal system either neglects or is contemptuous of concrete property rights, while adulating an ill defined abstract notion of "equality." The remarkable framers of the US constitution (inspired in part by the Jewish tradition that was embodied in the institution of the Jubilee, and by our sages insistence that "a poor man is like a dead man" because he lacked the real rights granted by property) wisely considered property rights as the most fundamental, concrete right on which all other rights must rest. For only in economic prosperity can a civil society fashion and maintain the voluntary associations that counterbalance the coercive power of The State, so readily abused.
This is why the American framers, especially James Madison insisted that a society that wants to protect freedom of choice must oppose a mechanical conception of equality (a Sodom's Bed really) and nurture a creative inequality and its outcome: property rights.
Such protection, Madison insisted, is "the first object of government."
Justice Barak and his esteemed colleagues do of course acknowledge the importance of property rights. But Barak considers them as deriving from "the central" abstract right of "Human Dignity and Liberty." Our basic law does not, Barak affirms, "define such a right" as property rights. Therefore the protection of such rights is dependent on judges who are mostly hostile to them and to competition. Many judges also lack the economic understanding to realize that without firm property rights and competition there can be no market exchange or a useful mechanism of pricing, the two essential attributes of a modern economy. Worse, most are infected with the socialist Zionist ethos that considered profit exploitation and property iniquitous. They are therefore not eager to protect such rights.
It will take a great educational effort to change these basic attitudes that made Israel economically lame. Meanwhile there are several managerial and procedural reforms that can be pursued to make our legal system a bit more efficient.
But first we must acknowledge that the crisis is severe and costly.
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The state of justice in Israel....
2 former justice ministers stand trial
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 17, 2006
MK Tzahi Hanegbi "saw the nomination of Likud members for positions in the service of the state in a positive light," his lawyer said on Tuesday, responding to charges that he had inappropriately appointed members of the Likud to the Environment Ministry while serving as minister.
According to Hanegbi's lawyer, "he reasoned that there was nothing wrong with this action, provided that the professional appointment system in the Environment Ministry made its own professional considerations."
Hanegbi was one of two former justice ministers on trial on Tuesday, as the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court reviewed evidence in the case against Haim Ramon and heard the testimony of the young woman accusing him of sexual harassment.
Ramon resigned from his post as justice minister some three months ago after a female soldier who had worked in his office complained that he had tried by force to kiss her.
Meanwhile, Hanegbi's trial commenced in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court with the reading of his indictment for fraud, breach of trust, election bribery, attempting to influence a voter, perjury and making a false oath.
The events referred to in the indictment occurred between March 7, 2001, and February 27, 2003, when Hanegbi served as minister of the environment. He was charged with appointing 49 workers to the Environment Ministry and another 20, 'who belonged to the Likud Central Committee or their relatives, and several others who were close to the minister personally,'to jobs in bodies connected to the ministry.
Hanegbi currently serves as chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 17, 2006
MK Tzahi Hanegbi "saw the nomination of Likud members for positions in the service of the state in a positive light," his lawyer said on Tuesday, responding to charges that he had inappropriately appointed members of the Likud to the Environment Ministry while serving as minister.
According to Hanegbi's lawyer, "he reasoned that there was nothing wrong with this action, provided that the professional appointment system in the Environment Ministry made its own professional considerations."
Hanegbi was one of two former justice ministers on trial on Tuesday, as the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court reviewed evidence in the case against Haim Ramon and heard the testimony of the young woman accusing him of sexual harassment.
Ramon resigned from his post as justice minister some three months ago after a female soldier who had worked in his office complained that he had tried by force to kiss her.
Meanwhile, Hanegbi's trial commenced in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court with the reading of his indictment for fraud, breach of trust, election bribery, attempting to influence a voter, perjury and making a false oath.
The events referred to in the indictment occurred between March 7, 2001, and February 27, 2003, when Hanegbi served as minister of the environment. He was charged with appointing 49 workers to the Environment Ministry and another 20, 'who belonged to the Likud Central Committee or their relatives, and several others who were close to the minister personally,'to jobs in bodies connected to the ministry.
Hanegbi currently serves as chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
A Special Place in Hell
Peace Never
By Bradley Burston, Haaretz, October 14, 2006
A little over 40 years ago, in another one-issue corner of the world, in another place that was too stiflingly hot, too historically traumatized, too politically paralytic to comfortably support human life, it was the question of racial segregation that occupied every cell of the resident subconscious.
So overwhelming was the issue, that protest signs and lapel buttons for opposing sides needed bear no more than a single word. For civil rights activists, Now was more than enough. For segregationists, it was Never.
If the past week is any indication, we here in the Holy Land can now make do with even less. At this point, a little under 40 years since the war many believed would be the Mideast conflict to end all Mideast conflicts, Never appears to be the only button left.
Unlike its well-established dovish counterpart, the Peace Never movement does not have mailing lists, officers and offices, a familiar logo, researchers, a website.
Nonetheless, Peace Never can boast wide support on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.
Given the bleak diplomatic and security landscape, it is safe to say, and easy to comprehend, that sizable numbers of onetime believers in peace, among them adherents to Peace Now, have tacitly decamped to Peace Never.
For many, the allegiance to Peace Never is nothing new. For some, Jew and Arab alike, secular intellectuals, religious fundamentalists, white collar or blue, Diaspora or domestic, the ideology of Peace Never is a congenital given: There can never be peace between Jews and Arabs in historical Palestine, and thus there never will be.
For others, among them, politicians, settlement activists and real estate developers, Peace Never serves an additional, functional role. For them, Peace Never means no conceivable need for future concessions. Peace Never assures that life can go on as it is, forever.
In a wider sense, there has always been something about Peace Never that appeals to Israelis and Palestinians both. Something about Peace Never makes many on both sides feel righteous, empowered, it gives them a stronger sense of self, of belonging, of historic mission, of place. It is not only the primordial pleasure inherent in the understanding that Real Men Never Make Peace. After all, women are very well represented among the fanatics on both sides.
The appeal also comes from this firm belief: If our side says Never long enough, the other side will eventually cave, and our side will be the winner who takes all.
On the Palestinian side, the primary exponent of the Peace Never movement is currently Ismail Haniyeh. In a speech that saw him faint from the combined effects of a Ramadan fast and the Gaza City heat, Haniyeh felt it so crucial to stress that Hamas would not recognize Israel, that he said it three times in succession.
On the Israeli side, the sudden leader of Peace Never is none other than the Chameleon of Cremieux Street. It was only two months ago that Ehud Olmert predicted that Israel would leverage a victory in the Lebanon war into a further withdrawal from the West Bank. By this week, his transformation was such that the prime minister was talking partnership with Avigdor Lieberman, perhaps the standout segregationist of the Israeli far-right.
Does the popularity of Peace Never mean that there will never be peace? Ironically, no. Just listen to Hamas' purported chief rejectionist, Khaled Meshal, quoted this week as saying he could live with a Palestine along the pre-1967 war borders. Lieberman, also, has been expansive in drawing possible lines for separate states for Israel and Palestine.
In the interim, though, who can blame the convert to Peace Never? How much can you expect believers in peace to take?
Our militaries, Palestinian and Israeli, have beaten peace to a pulp. Year after year, we cluster bomb it from the air, suicide bomb it from buses, pick it off with sniper rifles, pulverize it with Qassam after Katyusha after Fajr after Zelzal. We settle it to death. We strangle it with walls, we crush it with bulldozers, we smother it by refusing to recognize the other side, talk to the other side, budge from our mental bunkers.
You can't blame many believers in peace for giving in and going to Peace Never.
How many years can you be expected to hold your breath, waiting for change, demonstrating for change, voting for change?
How many peace plans can you watch go unaddressed?
How many special envoys, Secretaries of State, Gulf state princes, can you watch leave with that same look on their face?
How much fury can you swallow?
How much disheartening can you stand?
How many generations have been raised hoping that the next will be the first not to go to war?
How many years can you hold your breath?
By Bradley Burston, Haaretz, October 14, 2006
A little over 40 years ago, in another one-issue corner of the world, in another place that was too stiflingly hot, too historically traumatized, too politically paralytic to comfortably support human life, it was the question of racial segregation that occupied every cell of the resident subconscious.
So overwhelming was the issue, that protest signs and lapel buttons for opposing sides needed bear no more than a single word. For civil rights activists, Now was more than enough. For segregationists, it was Never.
If the past week is any indication, we here in the Holy Land can now make do with even less. At this point, a little under 40 years since the war many believed would be the Mideast conflict to end all Mideast conflicts, Never appears to be the only button left.
Unlike its well-established dovish counterpart, the Peace Never movement does not have mailing lists, officers and offices, a familiar logo, researchers, a website.
Nonetheless, Peace Never can boast wide support on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.
Given the bleak diplomatic and security landscape, it is safe to say, and easy to comprehend, that sizable numbers of onetime believers in peace, among them adherents to Peace Now, have tacitly decamped to Peace Never.
For many, the allegiance to Peace Never is nothing new. For some, Jew and Arab alike, secular intellectuals, religious fundamentalists, white collar or blue, Diaspora or domestic, the ideology of Peace Never is a congenital given: There can never be peace between Jews and Arabs in historical Palestine, and thus there never will be.
For others, among them, politicians, settlement activists and real estate developers, Peace Never serves an additional, functional role. For them, Peace Never means no conceivable need for future concessions. Peace Never assures that life can go on as it is, forever.
In a wider sense, there has always been something about Peace Never that appeals to Israelis and Palestinians both. Something about Peace Never makes many on both sides feel righteous, empowered, it gives them a stronger sense of self, of belonging, of historic mission, of place. It is not only the primordial pleasure inherent in the understanding that Real Men Never Make Peace. After all, women are very well represented among the fanatics on both sides.
The appeal also comes from this firm belief: If our side says Never long enough, the other side will eventually cave, and our side will be the winner who takes all.
On the Palestinian side, the primary exponent of the Peace Never movement is currently Ismail Haniyeh. In a speech that saw him faint from the combined effects of a Ramadan fast and the Gaza City heat, Haniyeh felt it so crucial to stress that Hamas would not recognize Israel, that he said it three times in succession.
On the Israeli side, the sudden leader of Peace Never is none other than the Chameleon of Cremieux Street. It was only two months ago that Ehud Olmert predicted that Israel would leverage a victory in the Lebanon war into a further withdrawal from the West Bank. By this week, his transformation was such that the prime minister was talking partnership with Avigdor Lieberman, perhaps the standout segregationist of the Israeli far-right.
Does the popularity of Peace Never mean that there will never be peace? Ironically, no. Just listen to Hamas' purported chief rejectionist, Khaled Meshal, quoted this week as saying he could live with a Palestine along the pre-1967 war borders. Lieberman, also, has been expansive in drawing possible lines for separate states for Israel and Palestine.
In the interim, though, who can blame the convert to Peace Never? How much can you expect believers in peace to take?
Our militaries, Palestinian and Israeli, have beaten peace to a pulp. Year after year, we cluster bomb it from the air, suicide bomb it from buses, pick it off with sniper rifles, pulverize it with Qassam after Katyusha after Fajr after Zelzal. We settle it to death. We strangle it with walls, we crush it with bulldozers, we smother it by refusing to recognize the other side, talk to the other side, budge from our mental bunkers.
You can't blame many believers in peace for giving in and going to Peace Never.
How many years can you be expected to hold your breath, waiting for change, demonstrating for change, voting for change?
How many peace plans can you watch go unaddressed?
How many special envoys, Secretaries of State, Gulf state princes, can you watch leave with that same look on their face?
How much fury can you swallow?
How much disheartening can you stand?
How many generations have been raised hoping that the next will be the first not to go to war?
How many years can you hold your breath?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Small is beautiful - but who will listen?
A small Jerusalem is better
Haaretz, October 11, 2006
By Moshe Amirav
On October 17, the National Council for Planning and Construction is supposed to discuss a new plan that will change the face of Israel's capital. At issue is the construction of 20,000 residential units west of Jerusalem, which will dramatically change the direction of the city's expansion and will weaken it economically and politically.
The public uproar surrounding the new plan, which has led to the submission of 15,000 objections, stems from fear that the planning mistake of the 1970s is repeating itself. At that time, Israel invested huge sums in the construction of about 40,000 residential units in East Jerusalem. These turned into seven neighborhoods, including Ramot, Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev, which today house about 180,000 Jewish residents.
The plan, which was initiated by Golda Meir's government in order to "strengthen the capital," was severely criticized by all the experts. Thirty years later, its destructive consequences have become evident: From a compact city of 37 square kilometers, Jerusalem has turned into a huge metropolis that covers 120 square kilometers, twice as large as the area of Tel Aviv and Haifa combined. Instead of channeling government investments into infrastructure, industry and tourism, they were channeled into the construction of these neighborhoods, which led to the flight of businessmen and the economic elites from the city.
During the past two decades, about 300,000 Jews have left the city, most from the middle or upper class. Jerusalem has turned into the poorest city in Israel, and today, Jewish neighborhoods comprise only one-third of the city's eastern part. The other two-thirds house about a quarter of a million Arabs, who have upended the demographic policy designed to reduce their proportions. The Jewish majority has shrunk to only 66 percent, and there is a fear that in another 20 years, the city will be binational - half its residents will be Palestinians.
The idea that a "bigger Jerusalem" would strengthen the city turned out to be mistaken. A "small Jerusalem" is preferable. Now, the National Council for Planning and Construction is about to repeat exactly the same mistake, but the consequences are liable to be far worse. A group of wealthy businessmen and a world-famous architect, Moshe Safdie, have joined forces to convince the municipality and the government that Jerusalem is not big enough, that it lacks built-up areas, and that 120,000 Jews must urgently be brought to it. Here lies the trap of the mistaken idea: There is no need to enlarge the city; just the opposite - it should be made smaller.
The solution is to strengthen the downtown area and invest in employment infrastructure, on one hand, and to relinquish the Arab neighborhoods, on the other. All the studies have proven that these two steps would strengthen the city economically and politically. They would raise the city's economic level from 90th (last) place, where it is now, to a respectable place in the top decile of Israeli cities. They would also increase the city's Jewish majority from 66 percent to 96 percent and ensure Jewish hegemony in the Israeli capital. But who listens to experts when wealthy businessmen promise the magic formula: the construction of 20,000 residential units on the slopes of the mountains west of the city?
The consequences of the Safdie plan, which calls for these thousands of new apartments, are liable to be a disaster for the capital. The plan would destroy the green landscape west of the city, while the economically strong population that the entrepreneurs promise to bring from the coastal plain to Jerusalem will not come. Tens of thousands of Jerusalemites will migrate from the city to private homes and cheap apartments in the luxury neighborhoods that will be built. The percentage of Jews in the city will decline to 50 percent within the coming decade, and Jerusalem will collapse economically and politically.
But now, just like 30 years ago, the experts' warnings will apparently be rejected under pressure of the entrepreneurs. Dozens of Knesset members from Labor, Yisrael Beiteinu, the National Religious Party and Meretz have signed a manifesto against the plan. But unless the interior minister and the prime minister intervene to stop the plan, or at least to downsize it, Jerusalem will continue on its planning march of folly, which holds that a "big Jerusalem" is the solution for strengthening the city.
The author served in the past as a member of the Jerusalem Municipality's administration
Haaretz, October 11, 2006
By Moshe Amirav
On October 17, the National Council for Planning and Construction is supposed to discuss a new plan that will change the face of Israel's capital. At issue is the construction of 20,000 residential units west of Jerusalem, which will dramatically change the direction of the city's expansion and will weaken it economically and politically.
The public uproar surrounding the new plan, which has led to the submission of 15,000 objections, stems from fear that the planning mistake of the 1970s is repeating itself. At that time, Israel invested huge sums in the construction of about 40,000 residential units in East Jerusalem. These turned into seven neighborhoods, including Ramot, Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev, which today house about 180,000 Jewish residents.
The plan, which was initiated by Golda Meir's government in order to "strengthen the capital," was severely criticized by all the experts. Thirty years later, its destructive consequences have become evident: From a compact city of 37 square kilometers, Jerusalem has turned into a huge metropolis that covers 120 square kilometers, twice as large as the area of Tel Aviv and Haifa combined. Instead of channeling government investments into infrastructure, industry and tourism, they were channeled into the construction of these neighborhoods, which led to the flight of businessmen and the economic elites from the city.
During the past two decades, about 300,000 Jews have left the city, most from the middle or upper class. Jerusalem has turned into the poorest city in Israel, and today, Jewish neighborhoods comprise only one-third of the city's eastern part. The other two-thirds house about a quarter of a million Arabs, who have upended the demographic policy designed to reduce their proportions. The Jewish majority has shrunk to only 66 percent, and there is a fear that in another 20 years, the city will be binational - half its residents will be Palestinians.
The idea that a "bigger Jerusalem" would strengthen the city turned out to be mistaken. A "small Jerusalem" is preferable. Now, the National Council for Planning and Construction is about to repeat exactly the same mistake, but the consequences are liable to be far worse. A group of wealthy businessmen and a world-famous architect, Moshe Safdie, have joined forces to convince the municipality and the government that Jerusalem is not big enough, that it lacks built-up areas, and that 120,000 Jews must urgently be brought to it. Here lies the trap of the mistaken idea: There is no need to enlarge the city; just the opposite - it should be made smaller.
The solution is to strengthen the downtown area and invest in employment infrastructure, on one hand, and to relinquish the Arab neighborhoods, on the other. All the studies have proven that these two steps would strengthen the city economically and politically. They would raise the city's economic level from 90th (last) place, where it is now, to a respectable place in the top decile of Israeli cities. They would also increase the city's Jewish majority from 66 percent to 96 percent and ensure Jewish hegemony in the Israeli capital. But who listens to experts when wealthy businessmen promise the magic formula: the construction of 20,000 residential units on the slopes of the mountains west of the city?
The consequences of the Safdie plan, which calls for these thousands of new apartments, are liable to be a disaster for the capital. The plan would destroy the green landscape west of the city, while the economically strong population that the entrepreneurs promise to bring from the coastal plain to Jerusalem will not come. Tens of thousands of Jerusalemites will migrate from the city to private homes and cheap apartments in the luxury neighborhoods that will be built. The percentage of Jews in the city will decline to 50 percent within the coming decade, and Jerusalem will collapse economically and politically.
But now, just like 30 years ago, the experts' warnings will apparently be rejected under pressure of the entrepreneurs. Dozens of Knesset members from Labor, Yisrael Beiteinu, the National Religious Party and Meretz have signed a manifesto against the plan. But unless the interior minister and the prime minister intervene to stop the plan, or at least to downsize it, Jerusalem will continue on its planning march of folly, which holds that a "big Jerusalem" is the solution for strengthening the city.
The author served in the past as a member of the Jerusalem Municipality's administration
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Dr. Doolittle's legacy in Israel - wildlife university
Animals in captivity / Third in a series : A wildlife university - for study and protection
Haaretz, October 11, 2006
By Zafrir Rinat
It has no elephants or lions, and no cars lined up at its gates. Nonetheless, it is a zoo. Tel Aviv University's Garden for Zoological Research in Ramat Aviv is an important center for the preservation of Israeli wildlife.
The research area is closed to visitors. Here the Yarkon Acanthobrama fish live in special aquariums - this fish is not particularly impressive, but it is extremely rare, found nowhere except in several Israeli coastal streams.
When the Yarkon dried up in the drought a few years ago, the Acanthobrama faced total extinction, so a breeding nucleus was established at the zoo. Recently, attempts have begun to reintroduce the fish into the streams.
Among the Acanthobrama's neighbors are a pair of Lappet-faced Vultures who are among the last remaining in Israel. According to the zoo's academic director, Professor Arnon Lotem, the birds tried to nest but failed to breed.
The zoo also has a female White-tailed Eagle, who is the mother of many of the eagles reintroduced into nature in recent years to prevent the species' extinction.
University zoos are not found routinely anywhere in the world. As is often the case in Israel, this, too, was the initiative of a small number of individuals, particularly one of the university's founders, the late zoologist Heinrich Mendelssohn.
He saw to it that the zoo that operated even before the university's founding would accompany it, move to its present home in Ramat Aviv and receive the official name "Garden for Zoological Research."
Not open to the public
The zoo is not open to the public per se, but it annually hosts thousands of school children, and various professional groups hold seminars there.
All tours are guided and families can visit only by prior appointment.
The staff prepares the food for the animals and sells some of it to other zoos as a source of additional income.
"The main objectives of the garden are research, teaching and promoting conservation," Lotem says. "The animals have no names because the goal is primarily to observe them and not to bond with them - as caretakers do in ordinary zoos."
At the heart of the garden is a small green park, a congregation point for passing birds and for some of the zoo's animals. "This area allows for observing various types of animal conduct, so we placed cameras that broadcast directly to the Internet," Lotem explains. "There are also animals such as peacocks, which are simply a good model for understanding behavior."
In one corner of the park there is a group of endangered Hawaiian Nene geese. Several breeding nuclei were dispersed throughout the world, including Tel Aviv. One of the males in the group is taking no chances and exhibits intimidating behavior toward human visitors who approach the gaggle.
The zoo also attracts visiting animals from the area. Mongooses drop by regularly and recently six vipers showed up. Permanent tenants include such denizens of urban nature as the fruit bat, which is revealed upon close observation to be friendly and nothing like its superstitious reputation.
Haaretz, October 11, 2006
By Zafrir Rinat
It has no elephants or lions, and no cars lined up at its gates. Nonetheless, it is a zoo. Tel Aviv University's Garden for Zoological Research in Ramat Aviv is an important center for the preservation of Israeli wildlife.
The research area is closed to visitors. Here the Yarkon Acanthobrama fish live in special aquariums - this fish is not particularly impressive, but it is extremely rare, found nowhere except in several Israeli coastal streams.
When the Yarkon dried up in the drought a few years ago, the Acanthobrama faced total extinction, so a breeding nucleus was established at the zoo. Recently, attempts have begun to reintroduce the fish into the streams.
Among the Acanthobrama's neighbors are a pair of Lappet-faced Vultures who are among the last remaining in Israel. According to the zoo's academic director, Professor Arnon Lotem, the birds tried to nest but failed to breed.
The zoo also has a female White-tailed Eagle, who is the mother of many of the eagles reintroduced into nature in recent years to prevent the species' extinction.
University zoos are not found routinely anywhere in the world. As is often the case in Israel, this, too, was the initiative of a small number of individuals, particularly one of the university's founders, the late zoologist Heinrich Mendelssohn.
He saw to it that the zoo that operated even before the university's founding would accompany it, move to its present home in Ramat Aviv and receive the official name "Garden for Zoological Research."
Not open to the public
The zoo is not open to the public per se, but it annually hosts thousands of school children, and various professional groups hold seminars there.
All tours are guided and families can visit only by prior appointment.
The staff prepares the food for the animals and sells some of it to other zoos as a source of additional income.
"The main objectives of the garden are research, teaching and promoting conservation," Lotem says. "The animals have no names because the goal is primarily to observe them and not to bond with them - as caretakers do in ordinary zoos."
At the heart of the garden is a small green park, a congregation point for passing birds and for some of the zoo's animals. "This area allows for observing various types of animal conduct, so we placed cameras that broadcast directly to the Internet," Lotem explains. "There are also animals such as peacocks, which are simply a good model for understanding behavior."
In one corner of the park there is a group of endangered Hawaiian Nene geese. Several breeding nuclei were dispersed throughout the world, including Tel Aviv. One of the males in the group is taking no chances and exhibits intimidating behavior toward human visitors who approach the gaggle.
The zoo also attracts visiting animals from the area. Mongooses drop by regularly and recently six vipers showed up. Permanent tenants include such denizens of urban nature as the fruit bat, which is revealed upon close observation to be friendly and nothing like its superstitious reputation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)