Work with what you got - and then with what you have left
On Nov. 18, 1995, Itzhak Perlman, the violinist, came on stage to give a concert at Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in New York City. If you have ever been to a Perlman concert, you know that getting on stage is no small achievement for him. He was stricken with polio as a child, and so he has braces on both legs and walks with the aid of two crutches. To see him walk across the stage one step at a time, painfully and slowly, is an awesome sight.
He walks painfully, yet majestically, until he reaches his chair. Then he sits down, slowly, puts his crutches on the floor, undoes the clasps on his legs, tucks one foot back and extends the other foot forward. Then he bends down and picks up the violin, puts it under his chin, nods to the conductor and proceeds to play.
By now, the audience is used to this ritual. They sit quietly while he makes his way across the stage to his chair. They remain reverently silent while he undoes the clasps on his legs. They wait until he is ready to play.
But this time, something went wrong. Just as he finished the first few bars, one of the strings on his violin broke. You could hear it snap - it went off like gunfire across the room. There was no mistaking what that sound meant. There was no mistaking what he had to do. We figured that he would have to get up, put on the clasps again, pick up the crutches and limp his way off stage - to either find another violin or else find another string for this one. But he didn't. Instead, he waited a moment, closed his eyes and then signaled the conductor to begin again.
The orchestra began, and he played from where he had left off. And he played with such passion and such power and such purity as they had never heard before.
Of course, anyone knows that it is impossible to play a symphonic work with just three strings. I know that, and you know that, but that night Itzhak Perlman refused to know that.
You could see him modulating, changing, re-composing the piece in his head. At one point, it sounded like he was de-tuning the strings to get new sounds from them that they had never made before. When he finished, there was an awesome silence in the room. And then people rose and cheered. There was an extraordinary outburst of applause from every corner of the auditorium. We were all on our feet, screaming and cheering, doing everything we could to show how much we appreciated what he had done.
He smiled, wiped the sweat from this brow, raised his bow to quiet us, and then he said - not boastfully, but in a quiet, pensive, reverent tone - "You know, sometimes it is the artist's task to find out how much music you can still make with what you have left."
What a powerful line that is. It has stayed in my mind ever since I heard it. And who knows? Perhaps that is the definition of life - not just for artists but for all of us. Here is a man who has prepared all his life to make music on a violin of four strings, who, all of a sudden, in the middle of a concert, finds himself with only three strings; so he makes music with three strings, and the music he made that night with just three strings was more beautiful, more sacred, more memorable, than any that he had ever made before, when he had four strings.
So, perhaps our task in this shaky, fast-changing, bewildering world in which we live is to make music, at first with all that we have, and then, when that is no longer possible, to make music with what we have left.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Don't talk to me about justice... Israel's "black hole"
Justice / The railway station ministry
Haaretz, November 30, 2006
By Yuval Yoaz
More than any other ministry, the Justice Ministry has suffered in recent years from an insufferable turnover, with ministers coming and going at a train station tempo. Haim Ramon put his finger on it in the speech he gave when taking office, just seven months ago, telling senior ministry officials that "this is the fifth inauguration of a justice minister in seven years. Ministerial handovers at that pace harm the government's ability to perform." Since then, there has already been another inauguration - for acting minister Meir Sheetrit.
Moreover, in appointing Tzipi Livni, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is essentially announcing not one, but two, new justice ministers. Cabinet members declare they are waiting for Ramon to return to office, if and when he is acquitted. But not every acquittal will let him walk back through the doors of the ministry.
So formally Livni has only been appointed for one month, leaving us questioning why Sheetrit - who is familiar with the office - didn't just stay on. The conclusion seems to be that even Olmert's circle is not entirely convinced that Ramon will be back, making this an important appointment: not a one-month job until the Ramon verdict, but a minister for the next four years.
But Livni is the only cabinet member of whom "four more years at Justice" cannot be said: while Sheetrit and Isaac Herzog could hold the portfolio in conjunction with their other functions, Livni can clearly not serve both at the justice ministry and as well as Israel's foreign minister. She doesn't even want to.
In this sense, Olmert demonstrated his loyalty to his friend, handing the portfolio to the one member of his cabinet who isn't interested in holding it more than a month. Ramon benefits from this, the public and the professional performance of the ministry benefit less when the cabinet really does appoint a permanent minister in another month. Not to mention the criticism from Attorney General Menachem Mazuz of the "black hole," in which no one held the portfolio for a full week.
The great unknown is what kind of justice minister Livni will be as the sand slips through the political hourglass. Will she take an active stance and, for instance, appoint her kind of Supreme Court justice? From her last stop at the justice train station, we learned that Livni decided to push appointments just when she found the timing to be inappropriate.
Haaretz, November 30, 2006
By Yuval Yoaz
More than any other ministry, the Justice Ministry has suffered in recent years from an insufferable turnover, with ministers coming and going at a train station tempo. Haim Ramon put his finger on it in the speech he gave when taking office, just seven months ago, telling senior ministry officials that "this is the fifth inauguration of a justice minister in seven years. Ministerial handovers at that pace harm the government's ability to perform." Since then, there has already been another inauguration - for acting minister Meir Sheetrit.
Moreover, in appointing Tzipi Livni, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is essentially announcing not one, but two, new justice ministers. Cabinet members declare they are waiting for Ramon to return to office, if and when he is acquitted. But not every acquittal will let him walk back through the doors of the ministry.
So formally Livni has only been appointed for one month, leaving us questioning why Sheetrit - who is familiar with the office - didn't just stay on. The conclusion seems to be that even Olmert's circle is not entirely convinced that Ramon will be back, making this an important appointment: not a one-month job until the Ramon verdict, but a minister for the next four years.
But Livni is the only cabinet member of whom "four more years at Justice" cannot be said: while Sheetrit and Isaac Herzog could hold the portfolio in conjunction with their other functions, Livni can clearly not serve both at the justice ministry and as well as Israel's foreign minister. She doesn't even want to.
In this sense, Olmert demonstrated his loyalty to his friend, handing the portfolio to the one member of his cabinet who isn't interested in holding it more than a month. Ramon benefits from this, the public and the professional performance of the ministry benefit less when the cabinet really does appoint a permanent minister in another month. Not to mention the criticism from Attorney General Menachem Mazuz of the "black hole," in which no one held the portfolio for a full week.
The great unknown is what kind of justice minister Livni will be as the sand slips through the political hourglass. Will she take an active stance and, for instance, appoint her kind of Supreme Court justice? From her last stop at the justice train station, we learned that Livni decided to push appointments just when she found the timing to be inappropriate.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
New strategy - first provide your own service...
No clinic? No school? We'll open one
Haaretz, November 28, 2006
By Aryeh Dayan
At the end of the period of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, and even during the early years of Israeli control, many Palestinians referred to Kafr Aqab as "millionaires' row." The neighborhood has deteriorated since then. Today, three years after the construction of the [security] wall there, the signs of neglect and disorder are clearly apparent, even at the entrance of the neighborhood, which is right after the Qalandiyah checkpoint. That checkpoint, and the wall that runs south and north of it, give the once-fashionable Palestinian suburb the look of a slum in a Third World city.
Kafr Aqab, with its current population of 25,000, is officially within the municipal jurisdiction of Jerusalem, and is supposed to receive services from the city. As part of the Israeli decision in 1967 to annex East Jerusalem, the redrawn northern extremity of the municipal boundary was the northern edge of Kafr Aqab, giving those who lived there the status of Jerusalem residents. As a result, they hold "blue" Israeli identity cards, pay taxes to the city of Jerusalem, are eligible for the services of the National Insurance Institute, and are entitled to travel and work anywhere in Israel.
The separation fence has left Kafr Aqab outside Jerusalem. To reach other parts of the city, its residents need to go through the Qalandiyah checkpoint. They can get to the West Bank cities of El-Bireh and Ramallah, on the other hand, without encountering any Israeli checkpoint. In this way they have fallen between the cracks: the Jerusalem Municipality (and the State of Israel) have stopped providing services to a neighborhood that is beyond the wall; while the municipality of El-Bireh to the north, whose jurisdiction borders Kafr Aqab, refuses to provide services to a neighborhood that is part of Jerusalem.
The reaction of the residents of Kafr Aqab to the situation in which they found themselves was completely different from that of other Palestinians in similar situations in other areas. Initially they did exactly what the others did: appealed the land-seizure orders for the construction of the wall, petitioned the High Court of Justice against its construction, organized demonstrations, sent demands to the Jerusalem Municipality and organized various lobbying activities. They soon realized, however, that they could expect to gain no benefit from all that, and opted for a different strategy.
At the initiative of several groups of young residents, a new neighborhood committee was established, which elbowed aside the existing, more conservative representative body. The new committee established a new organization called "the Kafr Aqab Development Company," officially registered it in Israel, and set about raising funds within the neighborhood (which is still home to quite a few well-heeled Palestinian businessmen).The company forged a connection with two associations that deal with matters concerning Arab residents of Jerusalem (the Israeli Ir Amim and the Palestinian Media and Development Institute), put its plans on a business basis, and began to promote several basic projects in fields that usually fall under the responsibility of the municipality and of government ministries.
Less than two years since the company was founded, many Kafr Aqab residents already see the results of its activity. Some 500 local children who, in the previous school year, had to be at the checkpoint before 6 A.M. to make it to school before classes began at 8 A.M., now study in a school established by the company in the center of the neighborhood.
Thousands of residents who regularly pay into the NII, and are entitled to medical attention under the National Health Insurance Law, were forced to traverse the checkpoint every time they needed to exercise their rights. Now they have at their disposable a clinic that the company has set up in the neighborhood, which operates as a licensee of the Clalit Health Services. Hundreds of local youngsters, who until recently aimlessly wandered the streets of the neighborhood, now come daily to the community center the company created. Dozens of houses, which for years the Jerusalem Municipality had refused to connect to the city's sewage system, have been connected by the company (without authorization), employing residents who work or have worked in the past for the municipal company that manages the system.
"After the wall was built, we understood we had only two choices: to live in a garbage dump or to take matters into our own hands," explained Samih Abu-Rumeileh, the moving spirit behind the neighborhood committee and the Kafr Aqab Development Company. "The wall created an entirely new situation here. Before it was built we received only a small part of what we were entitled to. After it was built, we got nothing. And the daily crossing at the checkpoint to get to school or to a clinic was simply destroying our lives."
License from Clalit
"We have no intention of giving up on the city and the state's fulfilling their obligations toward us," says Fawaz Tamimi, Abu-Rumeileh's colleague in the leadership of the residents committee, and appointed by him as vice-principal of the school. He is 38, the son of a jewelry merchant, and studies business administration at a college in Ramallah. "We pay municipal taxes like every Jerusalem resident, and the city has to give us the same services it gives everyone else. We simply decided to reverse the order of things. Instead of waiting until the government gives us services, we first provide the services ourselves and then make demands of the government."
In the many meetings they had with the municipality regarding the education system, they repeatedly heard the claim that most of the buildings in the neighborhood were illegally built, and the government is prohibited from renting an illegal structure for establishing a school.
"We have no problem renting a building that was erected without a license," says Tamimi with a smile. And that is exactly what they did. With contributions from the parents, and a large endowment from the Ford Foundation (through the mediation of Ir Amim), the Kafr Aqab Development Company rented a three-story building on the main street of the neighborhood, renovated it, furnished it and turned it into a school. Today it boasts 497 students in 15 classes, from first to 12th grade. The teachers were drawn from educators who live in the neighborhood, and who, in the past, were compelled to deal with the checkpoints to go to work. Only then, just as the school year was about to begin, did they turn to the Education Ministry and to the municipality with a demand for recognition and funding. The recognition has been given; the funding, they hope, will start coming through next month.
That is, more or less, the way they handled the clinic. The Kafr Aqab Development Company organized a group of businessmen and a few doctors from within the community. They invested $100,000 in procuring equipment for a clinic that would be able to provide most of the services that most HMO clinics provide. After they had rented an appropriate building, they approached the Clalit HMO and requested a license to operate the clinic in its name. Clalit operates several clinics on this basis elsewhere in Israel. The licensee receives a monthly payment for every member of the HMO living in its district, and the HMO determines the medical standards and supervises the professional operation of the clinic. "Economic calculations show that a clinic that serves 3,000 members can maintain itself," says Abu-Rumeileh, who once renovated buildings, then drove a truck, and is today the clinic's administrative director. "There are 3,000 members of the HMO in Kafr Aqab, so I hope it will start showing a profit in another few months."
Even if there was not a direct political motive, the "declaration of independence" of the residents of Kafr Aqab is not divorced from political considerations. "Kafr Aqab is part of Jerusalem, and we are all part of the Palestinian people, and we all oppose the occupation," says Abu-Rumeileh. "But there is no reason for us to suffer the occupation in silence, and just wait for it to go away." He believes that Israel is moving in the direction of a "long-term transfer" of Palestinian residents [out of] Jerusalem, that it hopes the Palestinians will break down and move away. He says that everything they have done in Kafr Aqab has been intended, among other things, to fight that trend.
It is a new strategy, and both Israel and the Palestinian organizations still have difficulty assimilating it. "At the beginning they accused us, especially Fatah, of collaborating with Israel," Abu-Rumeileh relates. "Later both Fatah and Hamas began to understand our activity is for the benefit of the people."
The response of the Jerusalem Municipality was that "the municipality gives the residents the best services it can under the present circumstances," and that it is the intention of the municipality "to integrate the Kafr Aqab Development Company and other local organizations in its activities.”
Haaretz, November 28, 2006
By Aryeh Dayan
At the end of the period of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, and even during the early years of Israeli control, many Palestinians referred to Kafr Aqab as "millionaires' row." The neighborhood has deteriorated since then. Today, three years after the construction of the [security] wall there, the signs of neglect and disorder are clearly apparent, even at the entrance of the neighborhood, which is right after the Qalandiyah checkpoint. That checkpoint, and the wall that runs south and north of it, give the once-fashionable Palestinian suburb the look of a slum in a Third World city.
Kafr Aqab, with its current population of 25,000, is officially within the municipal jurisdiction of Jerusalem, and is supposed to receive services from the city. As part of the Israeli decision in 1967 to annex East Jerusalem, the redrawn northern extremity of the municipal boundary was the northern edge of Kafr Aqab, giving those who lived there the status of Jerusalem residents. As a result, they hold "blue" Israeli identity cards, pay taxes to the city of Jerusalem, are eligible for the services of the National Insurance Institute, and are entitled to travel and work anywhere in Israel.
The separation fence has left Kafr Aqab outside Jerusalem. To reach other parts of the city, its residents need to go through the Qalandiyah checkpoint. They can get to the West Bank cities of El-Bireh and Ramallah, on the other hand, without encountering any Israeli checkpoint. In this way they have fallen between the cracks: the Jerusalem Municipality (and the State of Israel) have stopped providing services to a neighborhood that is beyond the wall; while the municipality of El-Bireh to the north, whose jurisdiction borders Kafr Aqab, refuses to provide services to a neighborhood that is part of Jerusalem.
The reaction of the residents of Kafr Aqab to the situation in which they found themselves was completely different from that of other Palestinians in similar situations in other areas. Initially they did exactly what the others did: appealed the land-seizure orders for the construction of the wall, petitioned the High Court of Justice against its construction, organized demonstrations, sent demands to the Jerusalem Municipality and organized various lobbying activities. They soon realized, however, that they could expect to gain no benefit from all that, and opted for a different strategy.
At the initiative of several groups of young residents, a new neighborhood committee was established, which elbowed aside the existing, more conservative representative body. The new committee established a new organization called "the Kafr Aqab Development Company," officially registered it in Israel, and set about raising funds within the neighborhood (which is still home to quite a few well-heeled Palestinian businessmen).The company forged a connection with two associations that deal with matters concerning Arab residents of Jerusalem (the Israeli Ir Amim and the Palestinian Media and Development Institute), put its plans on a business basis, and began to promote several basic projects in fields that usually fall under the responsibility of the municipality and of government ministries.
Less than two years since the company was founded, many Kafr Aqab residents already see the results of its activity. Some 500 local children who, in the previous school year, had to be at the checkpoint before 6 A.M. to make it to school before classes began at 8 A.M., now study in a school established by the company in the center of the neighborhood.
Thousands of residents who regularly pay into the NII, and are entitled to medical attention under the National Health Insurance Law, were forced to traverse the checkpoint every time they needed to exercise their rights. Now they have at their disposable a clinic that the company has set up in the neighborhood, which operates as a licensee of the Clalit Health Services. Hundreds of local youngsters, who until recently aimlessly wandered the streets of the neighborhood, now come daily to the community center the company created. Dozens of houses, which for years the Jerusalem Municipality had refused to connect to the city's sewage system, have been connected by the company (without authorization), employing residents who work or have worked in the past for the municipal company that manages the system.
"After the wall was built, we understood we had only two choices: to live in a garbage dump or to take matters into our own hands," explained Samih Abu-Rumeileh, the moving spirit behind the neighborhood committee and the Kafr Aqab Development Company. "The wall created an entirely new situation here. Before it was built we received only a small part of what we were entitled to. After it was built, we got nothing. And the daily crossing at the checkpoint to get to school or to a clinic was simply destroying our lives."
License from Clalit
"We have no intention of giving up on the city and the state's fulfilling their obligations toward us," says Fawaz Tamimi, Abu-Rumeileh's colleague in the leadership of the residents committee, and appointed by him as vice-principal of the school. He is 38, the son of a jewelry merchant, and studies business administration at a college in Ramallah. "We pay municipal taxes like every Jerusalem resident, and the city has to give us the same services it gives everyone else. We simply decided to reverse the order of things. Instead of waiting until the government gives us services, we first provide the services ourselves and then make demands of the government."
In the many meetings they had with the municipality regarding the education system, they repeatedly heard the claim that most of the buildings in the neighborhood were illegally built, and the government is prohibited from renting an illegal structure for establishing a school.
"We have no problem renting a building that was erected without a license," says Tamimi with a smile. And that is exactly what they did. With contributions from the parents, and a large endowment from the Ford Foundation (through the mediation of Ir Amim), the Kafr Aqab Development Company rented a three-story building on the main street of the neighborhood, renovated it, furnished it and turned it into a school. Today it boasts 497 students in 15 classes, from first to 12th grade. The teachers were drawn from educators who live in the neighborhood, and who, in the past, were compelled to deal with the checkpoints to go to work. Only then, just as the school year was about to begin, did they turn to the Education Ministry and to the municipality with a demand for recognition and funding. The recognition has been given; the funding, they hope, will start coming through next month.
That is, more or less, the way they handled the clinic. The Kafr Aqab Development Company organized a group of businessmen and a few doctors from within the community. They invested $100,000 in procuring equipment for a clinic that would be able to provide most of the services that most HMO clinics provide. After they had rented an appropriate building, they approached the Clalit HMO and requested a license to operate the clinic in its name. Clalit operates several clinics on this basis elsewhere in Israel. The licensee receives a monthly payment for every member of the HMO living in its district, and the HMO determines the medical standards and supervises the professional operation of the clinic. "Economic calculations show that a clinic that serves 3,000 members can maintain itself," says Abu-Rumeileh, who once renovated buildings, then drove a truck, and is today the clinic's administrative director. "There are 3,000 members of the HMO in Kafr Aqab, so I hope it will start showing a profit in another few months."
Even if there was not a direct political motive, the "declaration of independence" of the residents of Kafr Aqab is not divorced from political considerations. "Kafr Aqab is part of Jerusalem, and we are all part of the Palestinian people, and we all oppose the occupation," says Abu-Rumeileh. "But there is no reason for us to suffer the occupation in silence, and just wait for it to go away." He believes that Israel is moving in the direction of a "long-term transfer" of Palestinian residents [out of] Jerusalem, that it hopes the Palestinians will break down and move away. He says that everything they have done in Kafr Aqab has been intended, among other things, to fight that trend.
It is a new strategy, and both Israel and the Palestinian organizations still have difficulty assimilating it. "At the beginning they accused us, especially Fatah, of collaborating with Israel," Abu-Rumeileh relates. "Later both Fatah and Hamas began to understand our activity is for the benefit of the people."
The response of the Jerusalem Municipality was that "the municipality gives the residents the best services it can under the present circumstances," and that it is the intention of the municipality "to integrate the Kafr Aqab Development Company and other local organizations in its activities.”
Discoveries beneath the Hurva...
Byzantine arch found at renovated Jerusalem synagogue
Haaretz, November 29, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
A high arch which had been part of the skyline of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem since the Six Day War has recently disappeared. It belonged to the Hurva Synagogue, Israel's grandest, most important synagogue until the War of Independence.
The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948, was removed due to the renovation and reconstruction of the synagogue now in progress.
Excavations at the site, directed by archaeologists Hillel Geva and Oren Gutfeld, have exposed findings from various periods of the synagogue's history. The most significant is an entire arch standing along remnants of a stone-paved street from the Byzantine period, which split from the Cardo (one of Jerusalem's main streets during the Roman and Byzantine period) and ascended east to the center of the Jewish Quarter. The arch - 3.7 meters wide, 1.3 meters thick and five meters high - is built of one row of large hewn stones. Geva believes it formed the entrance gate to the Byzantine street.
"This arch is unique, because in excavations there so far only wide domes that walled the shops along the Byzantine Cardo were found," says Geva. "It shows where the street split from the Cardo, and has been recovered intact."
Yuval Baruch, the archaeologist of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), also believes "this is a rare and important finding."
The excavations, which began in 2003, also unearthed structures and pottery from the First Temple period, remnants of rooms from the Herodian period (Second Temple), burnt wooden logs (evidence of fire that took place after the destruction of the Second Temple), and three plastered ritual baths carved in rock from the Second Temple period.
The diggers also found a small weapons arsenal, where defenders of the Jewish Quarter stashed mortar shells and grenades during the Independence War.
The Hurva's renovation ended a prolonged architectural argument about how to reconstruct the synagogue, which was the center of cultural and spiritual life in Israel and the Jewish Quarter in the second half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. Ultimately, architect Nahum Meltzer's plan to reconstruct the original synagogue was adopted.
The courtyard was purchased 306 years ago by Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid (Segal), who arrived from Poland with 300 of his students. It sat adjacent to the Ramban Synagogue, built some 430 years earlier, and was closed by the Ottomans in 1589. The Ashkenazi community in the Old City numbered a mere few hundred people in those days and Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students' coming caused much commotion. He died five days later.
His followers began building a yeshiva and synagogue in the courtyard, but the construction was not completed. The Jews were late returning the loan to the Arabs for the project and in 1721 the Arabs burned the uncompleted synagogue and the 40 Torah scrolls it housed. The site remained desolate for 140 years, thus acquiring the name "hurva" (the wreck). A new synagogue was built there by the disciples of the Vilna Gaon in 1864.
The Hurva then became the most splendid synagogue in Israel and hosted important Jewish events until the 1930s. Two days after conquering the quarter in 1948, the Jordanians bombed the synagogue and the Jordanian commander reported to headquarters: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."
Haaretz, November 29, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
A high arch which had been part of the skyline of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem since the Six Day War has recently disappeared. It belonged to the Hurva Synagogue, Israel's grandest, most important synagogue until the War of Independence.
The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948, was removed due to the renovation and reconstruction of the synagogue now in progress.
Excavations at the site, directed by archaeologists Hillel Geva and Oren Gutfeld, have exposed findings from various periods of the synagogue's history. The most significant is an entire arch standing along remnants of a stone-paved street from the Byzantine period, which split from the Cardo (one of Jerusalem's main streets during the Roman and Byzantine period) and ascended east to the center of the Jewish Quarter. The arch - 3.7 meters wide, 1.3 meters thick and five meters high - is built of one row of large hewn stones. Geva believes it formed the entrance gate to the Byzantine street.
"This arch is unique, because in excavations there so far only wide domes that walled the shops along the Byzantine Cardo were found," says Geva. "It shows where the street split from the Cardo, and has been recovered intact."
Yuval Baruch, the archaeologist of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), also believes "this is a rare and important finding."
The excavations, which began in 2003, also unearthed structures and pottery from the First Temple period, remnants of rooms from the Herodian period (Second Temple), burnt wooden logs (evidence of fire that took place after the destruction of the Second Temple), and three plastered ritual baths carved in rock from the Second Temple period.
The diggers also found a small weapons arsenal, where defenders of the Jewish Quarter stashed mortar shells and grenades during the Independence War.
The Hurva's renovation ended a prolonged architectural argument about how to reconstruct the synagogue, which was the center of cultural and spiritual life in Israel and the Jewish Quarter in the second half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. Ultimately, architect Nahum Meltzer's plan to reconstruct the original synagogue was adopted.
The courtyard was purchased 306 years ago by Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid (Segal), who arrived from Poland with 300 of his students. It sat adjacent to the Ramban Synagogue, built some 430 years earlier, and was closed by the Ottomans in 1589. The Ashkenazi community in the Old City numbered a mere few hundred people in those days and Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students' coming caused much commotion. He died five days later.
His followers began building a yeshiva and synagogue in the courtyard, but the construction was not completed. The Jews were late returning the loan to the Arabs for the project and in 1721 the Arabs burned the uncompleted synagogue and the 40 Torah scrolls it housed. The site remained desolate for 140 years, thus acquiring the name "hurva" (the wreck). A new synagogue was built there by the disciples of the Vilna Gaon in 1864.
The Hurva then became the most splendid synagogue in Israel and hosted important Jewish events until the 1930s. Two days after conquering the quarter in 1948, the Jordanians bombed the synagogue and the Jordanian commander reported to headquarters: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."
Discoveries beneath the Hurva...
Byzantine arch found at renovated Jerusalem synagogue
Haaretz, November 29, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
A high arch which had been part of the skyline of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem since the Six Day War has recently disappeared. It belonged to the Hurva Synagogue, Israel's grandest, most important synagogue until the War of Independence.
The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948, was removed due to the renovation and reconstruction of the synagogue now in progress.
Excavations at the site, directed by archaeologists Hillel Geva and Oren Gutfeld, have exposed findings from various periods of the synagogue's history. The most significant is an entire arch standing along remnants of a stone-paved street from the Byzantine period, which split from the Cardo (one of Jerusalem's main streets during the Roman and Byzantine period) and ascended east to the center of the Jewish Quarter. The arch - 3.7 meters wide, 1.3 meters thick and five meters high - is built of one row of large hewn stones. Geva believes it formed the entrance gate to the Byzantine street.
"This arch is unique, because in excavations there so far only wide domes that walled the shops along the Byzantine Cardo were found," says Geva. "It shows where the street split from the Cardo, and has been recovered intact."
Yuval Baruch, the archaeologist of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), also believes "this is a rare and important finding."
The excavations, which began in 2003, also unearthed structures and pottery from the First Temple period, remnants of rooms from the Herodian period (Second Temple), burnt wooden logs (evidence of fire that took place after the destruction of the Second Temple), and three plastered ritual baths carved in rock from the Second Temple period.
The diggers also found a small weapons arsenal, where defenders of the Jewish Quarter stashed mortar shells and grenades during the Independence War.
The Hurva's renovation ended a prolonged architectural argument about how to reconstruct the synagogue, which was the center of cultural and spiritual life in Israel and the Jewish Quarter in the second half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. Ultimately, architect Nahum Meltzer's plan to reconstruct the original synagogue was adopted.
The courtyard was purchased 306 years ago by Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid (Segal), who arrived from Poland with 300 of his students. It sat adjacent to the Ramban Synagogue, built some 430 years earlier, and was closed by the Ottomans in 1589. The Ashkenazi community in the Old City numbered a mere few hundred people in those days and Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students' coming caused much commotion. He died five days later.
His followers began building a yeshiva and synagogue in the courtyard, but the construction was not completed. The Jews were late returning the loan to the Arabs for the project and in 1721 the Arabs burned the uncompleted synagogue and the 40 Torah scrolls it housed. The site remained desolate for 140 years, thus acquiring the name "hurva" (the wreck). A new synagogue was built there by the disciples of the Vilna Gaon in 1864.
The Hurva then became the most splendid synagogue in Israel and hosted important Jewish events until the 1930s. Two days after conquering the quarter in 1948, the Jordanians bombed the synagogue and the Jordanian commander reported to headquarters: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."
Haaretz, November 29, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
A high arch which had been part of the skyline of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem since the Six Day War has recently disappeared. It belonged to the Hurva Synagogue, Israel's grandest, most important synagogue until the War of Independence.
The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948, was removed due to the renovation and reconstruction of the synagogue now in progress.
Excavations at the site, directed by archaeologists Hillel Geva and Oren Gutfeld, have exposed findings from various periods of the synagogue's history. The most significant is an entire arch standing along remnants of a stone-paved street from the Byzantine period, which split from the Cardo (one of Jerusalem's main streets during the Roman and Byzantine period) and ascended east to the center of the Jewish Quarter. The arch - 3.7 meters wide, 1.3 meters thick and five meters high - is built of one row of large hewn stones. Geva believes it formed the entrance gate to the Byzantine street.
"This arch is unique, because in excavations there so far only wide domes that walled the shops along the Byzantine Cardo were found," says Geva. "It shows where the street split from the Cardo, and has been recovered intact."
Yuval Baruch, the archaeologist of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), also believes "this is a rare and important finding."
The excavations, which began in 2003, also unearthed structures and pottery from the First Temple period, remnants of rooms from the Herodian period (Second Temple), burnt wooden logs (evidence of fire that took place after the destruction of the Second Temple), and three plastered ritual baths carved in rock from the Second Temple period.
The diggers also found a small weapons arsenal, where defenders of the Jewish Quarter stashed mortar shells and grenades during the Independence War.
The Hurva's renovation ended a prolonged architectural argument about how to reconstruct the synagogue, which was the center of cultural and spiritual life in Israel and the Jewish Quarter in the second half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. Ultimately, architect Nahum Meltzer's plan to reconstruct the original synagogue was adopted.
The courtyard was purchased 306 years ago by Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid (Segal), who arrived from Poland with 300 of his students. It sat adjacent to the Ramban Synagogue, built some 430 years earlier, and was closed by the Ottomans in 1589. The Ashkenazi community in the Old City numbered a mere few hundred people in those days and Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students' coming caused much commotion. He died five days later.
His followers began building a yeshiva and synagogue in the courtyard, but the construction was not completed. The Jews were late returning the loan to the Arabs for the project and in 1721 the Arabs burned the uncompleted synagogue and the 40 Torah scrolls it housed. The site remained desolate for 140 years, thus acquiring the name "hurva" (the wreck). A new synagogue was built there by the disciples of the Vilna Gaon in 1864.
The Hurva then became the most splendid synagogue in Israel and hosted important Jewish events until the 1930s. Two days after conquering the quarter in 1948, the Jordanians bombed the synagogue and the Jordanian commander reported to headquarters: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."
Discoveries beneath the Hurva...
Byzantine arch found at renovated Jerusalem synagogue
Haaretz, November 29, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
A high arch which had been part of the skyline of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem since the Six Day War has recently disappeared. It belonged to the Hurva Synagogue, Israel's grandest, most important synagogue until the War of Independence.
The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948, was removed due to the renovation and reconstruction of the synagogue now in progress.
Excavations at the site, directed by archaeologists Hillel Geva and Oren Gutfeld, have exposed findings from various periods of the synagogue's history. The most significant is an entire arch standing along remnants of a stone-paved street from the Byzantine period, which split from the Cardo (one of Jerusalem's main streets during the Roman and Byzantine period) and ascended east to the center of the Jewish Quarter. The arch - 3.7 meters wide, 1.3 meters thick and five meters high - is built of one row of large hewn stones. Geva believes it formed the entrance gate to the Byzantine street.
"This arch is unique, because in excavations there so far only wide domes that walled the shops along the Byzantine Cardo were found," says Geva. "It shows where the street split from the Cardo, and has been recovered intact."
Yuval Baruch, the archaeologist of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), also believes "this is a rare and important finding."
The excavations, which began in 2003, also unearthed structures and pottery from the First Temple period, remnants of rooms from the Herodian period (Second Temple), burnt wooden logs (evidence of fire that took place after the destruction of the Second Temple), and three plastered ritual baths carved in rock from the Second Temple period.
The diggers also found a small weapons arsenal, where defenders of the Jewish Quarter stashed mortar shells and grenades during the Independence War.
The Hurva's renovation ended a prolonged architectural argument about how to reconstruct the synagogue, which was the center of cultural and spiritual life in Israel and the Jewish Quarter in the second half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. Ultimately, architect Nahum Meltzer's plan to reconstruct the original synagogue was adopted.
The courtyard was purchased 306 years ago by Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid (Segal), who arrived from Poland with 300 of his students. It sat adjacent to the Ramban Synagogue, built some 430 years earlier, and was closed by the Ottomans in 1589. The Ashkenazi community in the Old City numbered a mere few hundred people in those days and Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students' coming caused much commotion. He died five days later.
His followers began building a yeshiva and synagogue in the courtyard, but the construction was not completed. The Jews were late returning the loan to the Arabs for the project and in 1721 the Arabs burned the uncompleted synagogue and the 40 Torah scrolls it housed. The site remained desolate for 140 years, thus acquiring the name "hurva" (the wreck). A new synagogue was built there by the disciples of the Vilna Gaon in 1864.
The Hurva then became the most splendid synagogue in Israel and hosted important Jewish events until the 1930s. Two days after conquering the quarter in 1948, the Jordanians bombed the synagogue and the Jordanian commander reported to headquarters: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."
Haaretz, November 29, 2006
By Nadav Shragai
A high arch which had been part of the skyline of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem since the Six Day War has recently disappeared. It belonged to the Hurva Synagogue, Israel's grandest, most important synagogue until the War of Independence.
The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948, was removed due to the renovation and reconstruction of the synagogue now in progress.
Excavations at the site, directed by archaeologists Hillel Geva and Oren Gutfeld, have exposed findings from various periods of the synagogue's history. The most significant is an entire arch standing along remnants of a stone-paved street from the Byzantine period, which split from the Cardo (one of Jerusalem's main streets during the Roman and Byzantine period) and ascended east to the center of the Jewish Quarter. The arch - 3.7 meters wide, 1.3 meters thick and five meters high - is built of one row of large hewn stones. Geva believes it formed the entrance gate to the Byzantine street.
"This arch is unique, because in excavations there so far only wide domes that walled the shops along the Byzantine Cardo were found," says Geva. "It shows where the street split from the Cardo, and has been recovered intact."
Yuval Baruch, the archaeologist of the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), also believes "this is a rare and important finding."
The excavations, which began in 2003, also unearthed structures and pottery from the First Temple period, remnants of rooms from the Herodian period (Second Temple), burnt wooden logs (evidence of fire that took place after the destruction of the Second Temple), and three plastered ritual baths carved in rock from the Second Temple period.
The diggers also found a small weapons arsenal, where defenders of the Jewish Quarter stashed mortar shells and grenades during the Independence War.
The Hurva's renovation ended a prolonged architectural argument about how to reconstruct the synagogue, which was the center of cultural and spiritual life in Israel and the Jewish Quarter in the second half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. Ultimately, architect Nahum Meltzer's plan to reconstruct the original synagogue was adopted.
The courtyard was purchased 306 years ago by Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid (Segal), who arrived from Poland with 300 of his students. It sat adjacent to the Ramban Synagogue, built some 430 years earlier, and was closed by the Ottomans in 1589. The Ashkenazi community in the Old City numbered a mere few hundred people in those days and Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students' coming caused much commotion. He died five days later.
His followers began building a yeshiva and synagogue in the courtyard, but the construction was not completed. The Jews were late returning the loan to the Arabs for the project and in 1721 the Arabs burned the uncompleted synagogue and the 40 Torah scrolls it housed. The site remained desolate for 140 years, thus acquiring the name "hurva" (the wreck). A new synagogue was built there by the disciples of the Vilna Gaon in 1864.
The Hurva then became the most splendid synagogue in Israel and hosted important Jewish events until the 1930s. Two days after conquering the quarter in 1948, the Jordanians bombed the synagogue and the Jordanian commander reported to headquarters: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."
Thursday, November 23, 2006
And now for something completely different - "Panda Porn"
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)