Factoids About the New Israeli Government

Here are some random facts about the 33 Israeli government, sworn in today.

• The coalition guidelines call for raising the threshold for electing Knesset members from 2% of the popular vote to 4%. In this Knesset that would eliminate all three "Arab" parties. In the last Knesset that would have eliminated all  those parties plus Meretz - the most left wing, pro peace of the Zionist parties. Why 4% and not 3 or 5? At  3% only one of the Arab parties would have been eliminated (Balad). At 5% Tzipi Livni's party - a coalition partner - would have been eliminated, and United Torah Judaism would have been on the edge.
• The coalition guidelines call for the passing of a law that will make "the states democratic character subservient to its Jewish character."
• Moshe Yaalon an ardent settlement supporter, and who was let go as chief of staff for openly opposing the withdrawal from Gaza, will be Minister of Defense, with control of the occupied territories. Yaalon is much more hawkish than outgoing Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak
• Ubber hawk, Danny Danon - the man who brought Glen Beck to Israel, will be Deputy Defence Minister
• Naftali Bennet, leader of the pro settlement party HaBayit HaYehudi, will be Minister of Industry, Trade, and Labor, where he can dole out subsidies and incentives to settlement enterprises. He will also hold Jerusalem Affairs portfolio responsible for the Jerusalem  Development Corp. Watch for much more aggressive Jewish only development in East Jerusalem.
• HaBayit Hayehudi will also hold the Ministry of Housing and Construction, the primary instrument for settlement and infrastructure building in the West Bank.
• Zeev Elkin, a Likud hawk and settler living in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem, swill be Deputy Foreign Minister. He will run the ministry while Netantahu himself formally holds the portfolio. Elkin is considered a far-right wing politician whose voting record opposed freedom of expression and human rights more than any other MK in the last Knesset
• Gilad Erdan, the new Minister of Communications distinguished himself in the past for promoting closer ties between Israel and American Evalgelicals, and for proposing a law that would allow revoking the citizenship of those disloyal to the state.
• Yair Lapid, a journalist, with no experience or training in business, finance, or economics, will be come Minister of Finance. He claims he will hire good advisers. HaBayit HaYehudi will hold the chairmanship of the Knesset Finance Committee, perhaps the second most important economic position in the coalition.
• Of the 22 ministers in the new government 4 are women and 3 are mizrachim/sefardim ("oriental" Jews.) There are no Arab ministers. Women make up approximately 51% of Israel's population, mizrachim/sefardim 44% (55% of the Jewish population), and Arabs  20%.

On "On Questioning the Jewish State"

Recently a piece appeared in the New York Times that has caused a bit of stir. Its called  "On Questioning the Jewish State" by Joseph Levine. Its worth a read. (Even though it could have used a good editor: it does ramble a bit.)

No doubt Mr Levine meant his article to be provocative. And, indeed, it has elucidated no shortage of attacks. One of these is called "An Ahistotical Tantrum" by Gil Troy and appears in Open Zion. In it Mr. Troy labels Mr Levine's article "a screed." Troy's article too is worth a read - if only to see how panicked and dishonest the "pro Israel" arguments have become.

I was so annoyed by Troy's article, that I wrote a long reply, intending to add it to the comments section of the article. But then I found that there is no comments section. And I couldn't see any way to add a comment. So I am publishing it here. Hopefully it is worth reading too.

Talk about screeds? Gil Troy does his usual hack job, even throwing in a good deal of "poor me" victimization: complaining at the end that "nuanced" articles by people like him never appear in the N.Y Times and that only one sided anti-Israel pieces like these appear in the Times. Anyone who regularly reads the Times knows this is crap. Searching the NYTimes web site shows 39 articles by Gil Troy! 17 mention Israel. How many articles has Professor Levine published in the Times? One. I would say, based on impressions of a regular reader, that 17 to 1 is a representative ratio of Zionist to anti-Zionist article in the Times, and if anything an over representing the anti-Zionist articles. 

We can also tell who is writing screeds by counting the number of times words like "facile", "distorted", "slanted", " ignorance", and yes - "screed" are used. None of these words appear in the article by Mr Levine's that Troy is attacking. Troy's article is chock full of these words and more. Mr Troy is Angry! And he thinks his anger makes him right - or at least that it will convince others that he is right.

But "l'goofo shel inyan":

Troy states correctly that modern European States grew out of ethno-nationalism. Yes they did. And that trend reached its apogee with the ethno-nationalism of the Nazi's. Since then, Western European states, at least, have moved away from ethno-nationalism and towards civic nationalism. Despite all the problems of integrating minorities into the fabric of Britain, France, Italy, Spain etc - they are allowed a path to full citizenship, and legally they guaranteed full rights and equality once they do. There are currently three black cabinet ministers in the French government. How many Palestinian Arab cabinet ministers have there been in the history of the State of Israel? (Answer - 1; two if you include Druze.) Arabs are over 20% of the Israeli population. Non-Europeans make up less than 15% of Frances population. In France the minorities are immigrants or their descendants. It takes time for any immigrant group to integrate. In Israel the minority population is indigenous. So this excuse does not hold. 

Moreover, the Palestinians are the indigenous people. The Jews are the immigrants. The UN convention of the Rights of Indigenous People emphasizes "the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations." In other words, indigenous people have collective rights - where they choose to pursue them - and the State cannot force the dominant culture on them, or make their acceptance of the dominant culture a condition of full civic rights and equality. The Palestinians did not, after all, choose to move to Israel, Israel chose to take them over. If anything, they are owed more rights, not less, than immigrants. 

Troy argues that Levine "overlooks the flourishing liberal nationalism of the 1800s". But these nationalism were ultimately jingoistic (see WW 1) and racists (see the Dreyfus case!). Zionism began precisely as a counter to the failure of these states to integrate ethnic and religious minorities - in particular the Jews. That the proper Jewish reaction should be to emulate such states, but this time with the Jews in top - is exactly what Levine objects to. 

Troy argues that "Levine misses the fact that most nations, through their flags, their languages, their national holidays, tell a particular story that includes some and excludes others." But most state symbols tell the story of the people in the land, not the story of a people half in the land and half somewhere else. The French don't -as far as I know - extol in their schools and in their national days and in speeches in the legislature and on state TV stories about their ethnic brothers in Canada. And most nations tell, through their symbols,  a civic story, not a religious story. (I will grant there are minor exceptions to this in the crosses that appear on many European flags) Immigrants to France can become fully French and fully embrace France without converting to Catholicism. Israeli Arabs however cannot fully embrace Israel (or be embraced by it) and identify with its symbols without converting to Judaism. (And I doubt most would be allowed to, even if they wanted to.) 

Troy states - as if it matters - that "states, like clubs, have “admissions policies” distinguishing between humans by designating some members or citizens." But Israel distinguishes - both de jure and de facto - between its own citizens. (Imagine the uproar if the Spanish government spend millions trying to "Castillianize" Catalonia , or the Basque provinces. but the Israeli government has spent millions, and continues to do so, in attempts to "Judaicize" the Galilee and the Negev.) And of course Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank and refuses to grant citizenship to the Palestinians living there. It tries to have it both ways - keeping the land while excluding (or depriving of rights) the people. 

Troy claims that Levine is "obsessed with Israel." and ignores greater injustices in other countries. This is a tired old argument. Levine is Jewish. Most Jews are obsessed (or at least overly concerned) with Israel. That only makes sense. We have relatives and friends who live there. Israel claims to act in the name of all Jews word wide. Many of our fellow Jews equate being Jewish with supporting Israel. Of course we focus, at least sometimes, on Israel. But Jews aside, would anyone argue against the current campaign to stop anti-Roma discrimination in Hungary, that the organizers are obsessed or biased because - after all there are worse problems in say ... Israel/Palestine? Are pro Tibet activists be accused of being unfairly obsessed against China because they do are not focused one the horrors in the Congo?

Further how does Troy know that Levine is not also active in other causes and focuses only on Israel? How does he know that the overwhelming weight of his opinions and writings and activism (conditions that would justify the word "obsessed") are about Israel. I bet he doesn't know any of that. Certainly the same charge of "obsession" has been made against other public intellectuals who have criticized Israel (Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler come to mind.) Yet these two are in fact famous for being actively critical of very many aspects of the modern world order. It is only the Israeli obsessed defenders of Israel that seem to not be aware of their activities in other areas. Their criticism of Israel is completely consistent with their general progressive and critical world view. 

Troy defend Israel by appealing to its Declaration of Independents - which indeed has some nice words - though it is, as Troy admits, full of mixed messaged. Troy calls these mixed messages "delightful." (Oh how quaint of him!) Others call them fatal flaws. And in any case, Israels' Declaration of Independence has no force in law, and has been more honored in the breach than in the observance. 

Troy writes "Israel seeks to build a rich, thick, public life and culture mixing the Jewish and Western traditions, with a trace of an Arabic accent, acknowledging that not everybody living in the Jewish state is Jewish. As a result, a notion of Israeliness has developed which is not just Jewish. As a result, Arabs have enjoyed the fruits of the Declaration’s civic equality ..." I can only say that Troy must be speaking of a different country than the one I lived in for 15 years and continue to read about and study "obsessively" I would ask any Israeli Arab if they agree with this. I cant imagine more than a handful would agree. In this passage Troy sound like more like an apologist than anywhere else in his piece. Is he really living in such a bubble? 

Finally, Troy appeals to that final respite of those who really have no good argument: "Its complicated." Well, yes it is complicated. So is the Turkish relationship to the Armenians or the Chinese relationship to Tibet or the Serbian relationship to the Kosovars, etc. So what? relationships of power and discrimination are often complicated, and not black and white. So what? They are still wrong and should be, labelled as such. How or if you fix them is a practical problem. But first you must define the problem. Levine is after all a philosophy professor and he is trying to clarify a point in political theory about "rights" and wrongs. Troy, on the other hand, is a historian, who when it comes to Israel at least, is mostly concerned with apologetics.

Obama Has Been Disaster For Human Rights and The Rule of Law

Remember when President Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo? Well four years on, it still going strong, with scores of prisoners being held  indefinitely without trials. At least Stalin had the decency to have show trials!

Now the Obama and company have asserted their rights to kill anyone (including U.S. citizens) anywhere, anytime, without any oversight or external review: forget about judicial process! If the President determines you are security risk - your gone!  Has Obama used these powers broadly and against innocent persons? We don't know: because the administration refuses to have its actions reviewed by an independent body. (And it certainly does not agree to have them pre-approved by a judge or by anyone else.)

Now we all want to believe that Obama is a nice guy and pretty smart, so hopefully, he is unlikely to make too many errors or misuse his newly  claimed authority. But no one is infallible.  What about future administrations? This is a terrible precedent  Would you trust this power in the hands of Dick Chaney? President Obama has far surpassed the Bush administration in its assertion of executive authority to "do whatever is needed" in the name of national security.

A recent article by Glenn Greenwald explores all this, and examines the collusion of the mainstream media in Obama's erosion of civil liberties.

Time and again, the Obama administration shrouds what it does with complete secrecy, and then uses that secrecy to avoid judicial review of its actions and/or compelled statutory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. "Oh, we're so sorry", says the Obama DOJ, "but we cannot have courts deciding if what we did is legal, nor ordering us to disclose information under FOIA, because these programs are so very secret that any disclosure would seriously jeopardize national security".

But then, senior Obama officials run to the New York Times by the dozens, demand (and receive) anonymity, and then spout all sorts of claims about these very same programs that are designed to justify what the US government has done and to glorify President Obama. 

Read the full article here.

This Reality Is Completely Off The Agenda In Israeli Coalition Talks

The reality of the daily oppression and humiliation of Palestine in order to privilege Jews of absolutely no concern in the current talks to form a new Israeli coalition. This will come back to bite us hard one day.


A news release from B'Tzelem reports:

Israeli security forces divided a road in the center of Hebron, separating it into a paved road for Jews and a narrow, rough passage for Palestinians

Since 1994, when settler Baruch Goldstein massacred Moslem worshipers in the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the Israeli military has adopted an official policy of separating Jews and Moslems in the city of Hebron. The policy is implemented primarily through severe restrictions on Palestinian travel and movement in downtown Hebron, where most Israeli settlement outposts are located. Some of the main roads in the area are completely off limits to Palestinians, and many roads bar any and all Palestinian vehicles. Israel’s strict restrictions have made the lives of Palestinians in downtown Hebron intolerable, forcing many to leave their homes and jobs.

One of the roads prohibited to Palestinian vehicles runs through the neighborhood of a-Salaimeh and leads to the Tomb of the Patriarchs. The road is about 70 meters long and has a checkpoint at either end: the Bakery Checkpoint at the northern end of the road and the Bench Checkpoint at its southern end. Until recently, Israeli security forces permitted Palestinian pedestrians and cyclists on the street. In order to transport supplies through the street, Palestinians were forced to use a horse-drawn wagon or a hand cart. Settlers and Israeli civilians are permitted to walk and drive cars on the street.

See the full story and accompanying video at

 http://www.btselem.org/hebron/20130304_new_fence_in_hebron

What's the Difference?

What's the difference between the two photos?

One was taken in 1928 in the southern U.S. The other was taken in 2013 in the southern West Bank.