Thoughts: A Buck Each

Israeli Model Makes "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit" Cover

2010-02-01T10:55:00.004-05:00

Mea culpa.

My apologies for having been absent for so long. I was and still am quite swamped with a number of personal obligations had had neither the time nor the energy to post. I still am not fully free, but as an apology of sorts, I offer this "lighter" post.

I hope people will continue to check in for when I can finally get back to writing again.

Geert Wilders: The Extremist or the Victim?

2010-01-20T14:06:00.004-05:00

I received an e-mail the other day with an interesting article and an even more interesting question attached. The article was actually a speech by a member of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders given in New York. When I read the speech, I could barely believe that it was an accurate transcript and so I looked it up, and indeed it seems to be authentic. The whole speech is here and I encourage you to read it before I get to the interesting question.

Having read the speech, you'll see that Mr. Wilders is obviously very concerned about Islam. He has little nice to say about the religion or its followers and paints a picture of a Europe being overwhelmed by populations of foreigners with no interest in integrating into Europe who may, eventually come to seize political power and then be in control of some of the worlds most powerful militaries and weapons. If this argument sounds to be extreme, apparently, it is not, and is even being championed, to a large part, by pundits, like Daniel Pipes.

So now the question that came with the article asked by the person who sent it to me: "Is this the Jew warning about the Nazis, or the Nazi warning about the Jew?"

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that either Mr. Wilders, or Muslims are Nazis. The term is used here to highlight the question of whether this is the extremist who may be fanning the flames of racism, or is this truly a victim sounding the alarm? The reason I ask this question is because I really have no idea.

When I first read the speech, I could hardly believe it. It seems very extreme and I am frankly not even convinced that all the information in it is true. For example, his claim that the Holocaust is not taught in some schools for fear of offending Muslims is, at least in the case of the UK, not true. Some of his other claims, about not teaching Muslim children about farms seems equally outlandish, but I don't know if it's true or not. His fears of Muslims watching television channels from their countries of origin also seems natural to me and not a reason for concern and I have no problem with a school, even a public school, offering Halal food to their students if that schools happens to be in a predominantly Muslim area. His arguments about Muslims taking over the governments of European countries also seems completely absurd and the likelihood of each "step" in the gradual takeover he foresees just seems...outlandish. To be frank, even if every word of the speech were to be true, I would find it difficult to accept that such a speech was motivated by anything other than a profound xenophobia and scarcely concealed racism.

On the other hand, I do take Mr. Wilder's point about immigrants who arrive in a new country recognizing that the values and lifestyle of their new home may be different than what they are used to and that adaptation is necessary. Certainly, national values and mores change with demographics and populations, but there are core values of different countries that need to be respected and it seems reasonable to say to new arrivals that they are free to carry on as they wish within the confines of the laws and constituting principles of their chosen home. I think this is really the only point on which I feel comfortable agreeing with Mr. Wilders but I am willing to be persuaded on the matter and hope this interesting question will generate some interesting comments.

Israeli Minister in the United Arab Emerites

2010-01-18T09:16:00.004-05:00

In the words of Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau, a splinter has been made in the ice of Israeli relations with the United Arab Emerites (UAE) as he became the first Israeli minister to visit that country. The minister was attending a conference of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) held in Abu Dhabi and was only actually allowed into the country because of UAE's agreement to let all members of IRENA attend.

It is difficult to see how this visit, which was for the purpose of attending an international meeting, and which saw the minister confined to his hotel for much of his visit is a "splinter" in the ice. Minister Landau suggests that because he was in UAE discussing common interests in renewable energy there is a basis for further discussions on issues of common interest. The reality, however, if that he was not in the UAE to speak to the Emeriti government but to speak to an international conference. Indeed, the UAE was firm that Landau's presence at this meeting did not represent the start of Israeli-Emeriti diplomatic relations.

On the other hand, Israeli delegations (at lower levels) have been to the UAE to attend previous meetings of IRENA and it is difficult to imagine that there were no bilateral meetings of any kind between visiting Israeli officials and their hosts. If even for the purpose of negotiating the logistics of Israeli participation in the meeting, contacts must have taken place at some level. Perhaps it is these, initial low-level dealings, combined with the mutual interests of renewable energy that Landau claimed to be his splinter.

Certainly, there is no ill that could come from the Minister's visit to the UAE and if the result is a low level relationship such as the one with Oman or Qatar, even over time, then the crack in the ice of relations between these countries will widen. There is no obvious reason for the UAE and for Israel to be enemies. Hopefully, Landau is right and his visit could be one of the first chips away at the stone.

Israel's Diplomatic Humiliation of Turkey Garners Mixed Reactions

2010-01-15T09:50:00.007-05:00

The "pages" of the major Israeli online media sources are filled today with opinion and reporting on the recent humiliation of the Turkish Ambassador to Israel and the subsequent series of apologies issued by Israel.

Some of these articles highlight the apologies made by Israel and the statements made by individuals like Israeli President Peres who seems emphatic that this sort of humiliation was not the way Israel conducted its diplomacy. Others more forcefully opined that the author of the embarrassment, Ayalon, should resign for having caused the tension and having given the Israeli diplomatic corps the black eye they he did.

Some articles are unapologetic. For example, Ayalon himself is convinced that his actions will change the tone of Turkish rhetoric about Israel, especially that of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Erdogan has been a particularly vocal and harsh critic of Israel and seems to prefer to cool, rather than warm, relations between his country and Israel. This naive approach, which the Israeli foreign ministry itself disagrees with assumes that now that Erdogan realizes how Israel really feels about insults he will tone down his language. This is frankly a ridiculous proposition as it has changed Israel from the aggrieved party to the offending one. Erdogan, and other diplomatic opponents of Israel, have a whole new realm in which they can criticise (and with good reason) Israeli behaviour. How does Ayalon think Israeli diplomats will now be received? How does he think foreign diplomats in Israel will interact with the foreign ministry? Certainly feelings of trust and friendliness will not be reinforced.

Others writing in support of the humiliation argue that given the harsh rhetoric from Ankara against Israel, and given that the episode in question was meant to express concern over an offensive Turkish television programme, Israel should show more self confidence and not worry about offending those that have offended it. Still, a weak argument. This is a question of how Israel conducts its relations and how it seeks to achieve its diplomatic goals. For a deputy foreign minister to behave this way seems to--but hopefully does not really--speak to a rot in the effectiveness of Israeli diplomacy. As the old cliche goes, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Some of the articles also point to domestic political considerations as the real reasons behind the spectacle of senior diplomats from Israel humiliating those of another country. For example, given that the deputy foreign minister is one of the parties forming the Israeli government, he needs to consider his domestic audience, and the opposition has called him on playing with Israel's strategic position for cheap domestic points. Points that probably were not scored.

The point is also made of the fine line that Israel needs to walk with Turkey. This line is balancing taking a firm position in response to the harsh criticism it faces from Turkish officials, but in so doing, remaining cautious about offending the Turkish people, with whom the Israeli people have generally close ties. The act of humiliating a Turkish envoy, which is receiving media play all over the world, and undoubtedly in Turkey, could jeopardize these important ties and place the Turkish population firmly behind its government in the adoption of a harsh stance on Israel. Still though, all is not lost. Official ties between Israel and Turkey continue and deals, such as the one for military drones, move forward.

Time will be the judge as to how much this incident really hurts Israeli-Turkish relations and indeed on the reception and effectiveness of Israeli diplomacy in the future.

Pity Haiti

2010-01-14T09:08:00.005-05:00

The devastation in Haiti is complete. Nearly 100,000 or more dead, buildings collapsed, prisoners escaped from collapsed prisons, hospitals, schools, homes, all flattened. The poorest country in North America dealt yet another tragedy, another losing hand.

Canada seems to have be en quick to respond and kudos for what seems like a quick and appropriate reaction. An advance team arrived aboard a Canadian forces plane which carried a helicopter aboard. Two more ships of the Canadian navy, HMCS Halifax and HMCS Athabaskan are being loaded with emergency supplies for their trip to Haiti, along with a contingent of up to 500 soldiers to help however they're needed.

This is exactly what Canada should be doing. For a country that seeks increased engagement in the Caribbean and in Latin America and that simply wants to do what is right we have an obligation to our neighbours to help them in their darkest hours, and we are doing exactly that. Kudos to the CAF for the good work they are and will be doing.

In keeping with the subject of this blog, Israel is also sending a rescue team halfway around the world to Haiti. Elite Israeli search and rescue forces have been dispatche as well as teams from IsrAID, the same team that assisted after the devastating earthquake in Italy about one year ago. Jewish communities around the world and here in Canada are also mobilizing to help raise funds.

The red cross, as always, is preparing to do their significant work and donations can be made to them here.

Reasons for the Failure of Israeli Diplomacy

2010-01-13T09:12:00.003-05:00

Many Israeli diplomats apparently know little or nothing of the culture or history of the country and people they are to be representing. In short, they know little of Judaism or Zionism, reports this article in Ha'Aretz.

Recently, Israeli foreign minister Lieberman lambasted Israeli diplomats posted overseas for being too soft in their arguments and being too willing to accept the narrative of the "other side" in favour of the Israeli one, which they should be representing. In response, some Israeli ambassadors replied that most Israeli diplomats are sincere in their patriotism and desire to represent their country but that there was a lack of leadership and guidance. Generally a diplomat posted abroad (by most countries) will be given a set of standard "lines" or positions to repeat and advance at every opportunity, on a case by case basis, as needed, they would be provided with instructions on issues as they arise. This apparent lack of leadership is therefore an important point. Judaism and Zionism, for example, are concepts that have varying interpretations. An orthodox Jewish Israeli diplomat may approach these issues differently than a secular one. With Israeli society itself as divided as it is over key issues, clear instructions are needed from Jerusalem for diplomats to know what they should be advancing.

This lack of leadership is believable as it has been highlighted by recent Israeli diplomatic interactions with Turkey. The Israeli deputy Foreign Minister called in the Turkish ambassador to express Israel's concern over a Turkish television documentary which depicted Israeli security agents kidnapping babies. As appalling as this show may have been, Israel's diplomatic response was a shameful spectacle in it's own right. The Turkish envoy was placed on a low sofa, his Israeli interlocutors on higher chairs with an Israeli flag on the table. All of which was explicitly and deliberately pointed out by the deputy FM to a cameraman filming the event. The Turkish ambassador rightly described the Israeli behaviour as adolescent and undiplomatic and the Turkish government asked for an apology for the humiliation of their envoy.

With attitudes and behaviours such as the deputy FM's it's not too hard to see how the Israeli foreign service may be accused of being ineffective. When the Israeli government complains about the ineffectiveness of their diplomats, about strained relations with countries like Turkey or the failure of the Israeli government to properly communicate its message, they must look to the top, to incidents like this most recent one with Turkey for answers. It is the job of diplomats to express their country's position, but this is to be done in a diplomatic fashion, with tact. Directly expressing discontent is absolutely acceptable, but humiliation of the enjoy of a country with whom your country would like better relations should leave no wonder why a country's diplomacy is ineffective.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a professional diplomatic corps, only it appears that it is being run by ruffians and boors on whom the subtleties and finer techniques of inter-state relations are lost. In the wake of such unprofessional and undiplomatic treatment of the envoy of a state with whom relations are so difficult, more than an apology is needed. A cabinet shuffle (though probably politically impossible) is what is really needed to redeem and reform the Israeli Foreign Service into something more effective.

Thousand Year Old Home, and Hippo Bones Found in Tel Aviv

2010-01-12T11:15:00.008-05:00

Archaeologists working in Tel-Aviv have discovered a prehistoric (8,000 year old) dwelling along with primitive tools and animal bones including those of a hippo.

The work seems to have been carried out in preparation for a building development. In Israel, as in many other countries in the region, construction is not allowed unless archaeologists have first inspected the site for anything of value. In this case, the discovery is being described as surprising and unique.

As always, my fascination with archeology and history turn to questions of who where these people, what were their lives like, what became of them, do they have modern heirs, and who are they? Also, how did hippo bones make it to Tel Aviv? Did hippos live in the region 8,000 years ago? Was the region so significantly different back then? If not, were these bones (or the meat that was on them) traded, and if so, with whom?

Fascinating stuff!

Lebanon Hopes to Beat Recently Set Israeli Hummus Record

2010-01-12T01:03:00.003-05:00

An Israeli town known as Abu Gosh has prepared the world's largest platter of Hummus, breaking a world record recently set in Lebanon. Lebanon had taken the distinction of home of the largest plate of Hummus from Israel, what had held it previously, but now the honour of this dubious distinction returns to the Israeli-Arab town of Abu Gosh, not far to the west of Jerusalem.

Some Lebanese seem sincerely upset that Israel produces and marks hummus at all, claiming that "...hummus is a Lebanese product..." and so Israel should not be selling it as an Israeli product. In fact, they don't even want Israel to be allowed to call the chickpea paste Hummus. Officials as high as the Lebanese tourist minister said "We have no objection that other people do hummus but they should know that it is Lebanese. They (Israelis) should find a name other than hummus because this is a Lebanese name." This is an interesting assertion because it seems that it's untrue.

While most sources agree that they have no idea where Hummus originated, the most suspected sources seem to be either Syria, Egypt or even Saladin. No source seems to suggest Lebanon though. Moreover, the word Hummus is Arabic for "Chick Pea" and is not a distinctly Lebanese word, or distinct to Lebanese Arabic, it's an Arabic one. This seems to make the whole debate seem somewhat...petty.

To boot, given that Hummus is an Arabic word and even Israelis agree that the dish is an Arabic one, it is utterly ignored that those that prepared the worlds largest dish in Israel, are actually Arabs. I wonder if the Lebanese were as outraged when Palestinians claimed that Hummus was theirs.

Lebanon now says that they're hoping to reclaim the record by making a giant plate of Hummus right on the Israeli border. This is obviously nothing more than an attempt to kidnap Israeli soldiers as they are undoubtedly counting on hapless IDF soldiers to try to cross the border in droves to try and get at that Hummus-y goodness. Hezbollah must be behind it.

Maybe, instead, all this hummus could be combined for the greater good, such as firefighting as it was (ridiculously) in the Adam Sandler film "You Don't Mess With the Zohan." Just imagine the good that would bring.

More seriously though, It's much nicer to worry about ludicrous bickering over Hummus than it is to have to deal with actual violence. Keep up the pettiness. May this be the biggest conflict Israel and Lebanon ever face again.

The Song That's Been in my Head All Day!

2010-01-11T19:36:00.003-05:00

I love this song and it's been in my head all day!

(My own) loose translation from Yiddish:

Chorus
Tumbala-tumbala Tum-balalaika (x2)
tum-balalaika, let the balalaika play
tum-balalaika, and let us be joyful

A young man is thinking
thinking and thinking the whole night
who should he propose to
who may he offend (x2)

Chorus

Maiden, maiden let me ask you
what can grow, grow without rain?
what can burn, without being consumed?
what can cry, and shed no tears?

Chorus

Silly young man,
why must you ask?
a stone can grow, grow without rain.
love can burn, without being consumed
the heart can cry and shed no tears.

Chorus

Oldest Hebrew Inscription Discovered

2010-01-10T00:36:00.007-05:00

In October, 2008, a teenage volunteer at an archaeological dig at Khirbet Qeiyafa, southwest of Jerusalem (see map,) discovered a 3,000 year old pottery shard with an inscription that appeared to be Hebrew, making it the earliest Hebrew writing ever found. More recently, scholars studying the shard--which would have been created around the time when King David ruled his ancient kingdom--have determined that the writing, which seems to be a legal text relating to slaves widows and orphans, is indeed Hebrew.

The archaeological implications of this include that people were speaking and writing Hebrew centuries before they had been thought to be, and that if there were people educated enough to read and write in what would have been a fairly small town, there must have been much more in the centres of power. Furthermore, some suggest that the ability to write in Hebrew at the time of Kind David lends increased credibility to the Old Testament since there is now evidence that those living at that time were able to write and record what they saw.

The legal nature of the shard also seems to imply that there actually was a central authority of sorts which created and promulgated these laws. The site at which the shard was discovered also speaks to this centralized power. For example, the site of the dig, which was a fortified city estimated to have contained 500 people was not large enough to have built its own massive fortifications and that the assistance of some sort of organized authority would have been needed.

I find this amazing for two main reasons. First, I've been to archaeological sites in the region and recall seeing piles and piles of discarded pottery shards. I was told, at that time, that there were so many shards it was really useless to go through them all, or to try to reconstruct the pottery itself. This is why the discovery of this inscription impresses me so much. It's amazing that such a physically small but historically impressive artifact was not simply discarded.

Secondly, I find it amazing to think of people living in this region three thousand years ago building a society for themselves. Fortifying their towns, drafting laws, spreading them, enforcing them. I find it amazing to think of these ancient people sitting in Jerusalem and conceiving of laws and then somehow communicating them to a scribe, or some other literate person in a more remote community who would pass the word of the government on to his neighbours. It's also amazing to think of an actual King David pronouncing these rules, or discussing them with his advisers and arranging for the rules to be promulgated.

IDF Lawyers to Consult With Army During Operations

2010-01-08T00:12:00.005-05:00

The IDF has now adopted the policy of having military lawyers consult with the army not only prior to military operations, but during them as well.

Frankly, I took it as a given that this is what had been happening all along and am surprised that it had not been. The implication of this order seems to be that prior to this latest decision, the emphasis of Israeli legal decision making was jus ad bellum, the legality of going to war, as opposed to jus in bellum, the law relating to the actual conduct of war. Certainly, Israeli military lawyers had examined questions of who or what can be targeted and under what circumstances, but it appears that when decisions were required in short time frames, there was no legal input. Contrast this with the Canadian experience where military lawyers are closely engaged at nearly all levels of the targeting process.

Also noteworthy from the Ha'Aretz article above is that Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs lawyers have advised against efforts to reopen the text of the Geneva Conventions so as to recognize the nature of the types of wars fought today, different from the ones fought when the conventions were drafted. Instead, Israeli lawyers are seeing understandings for a "dynamic" interpretation of the law with other western countries.

The reality of the situation this will likely lead to is one where all states that have come to an agreement for a "dynamic" interpretation will come to increasingly ignore traditional interpretations of the laws of war. It could, in effect, create a two tiered system where those that support a traditional interpretation will make one claim and Western states will argue in support of another. One would have to hope that this duality would not result in an undermining of the law all together and a situation where human rights are altogether ignored to make way for purely security concerns.

I think that if Western states truly believe that the Laws of War, as they now stand are insufficient to cope with the realities of modern counter-terrorism and asymmetrical warfare, then there is a legal and moral imperative to take the lead and make their case to the rest of the world.

Thoughts on Lawyer Behind Much Lawfare Against Israel

2010-01-06T00:53:00.004-05:00

Daniel Machover, a lawyer from London and founder of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, has published a salvo against "die-hard supporters of Israeli policies" who he argues have co-opted the term "lawfare" on the Huffington Post blog. His comments have prompted some thoughts.

Mr. Machover begins by suggesting that applying the term lawfare is meant to discredit non-violent resistance as politically motivated efforts with no legal merit. What Mr. Machover ignores is that these claims, while indeed non-violent, are politically motivated on their face and they often have no legal merit, as evidenced by them being thrown out of court by judges in reputable, western jurisdictions. Consider, further to this argument, that Palestinian Lawyers for Human Rights has as it's goal the furthering of a political aim, that being achieving Palestinian self determination. Mr. Machover as well has represented the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights who have launched an extensive legal fishing expedition in the hopes of finding just a single case with which they can point to a legal decision branding an Israeli as a war criminal.

More compelling, however, is the fact that courts in the west have been considering and throwing out these lawfare style cases that Mr. Machover suggests are legitimate. Cases in Canada, the Netherlands and Spain, have all been thrown out because the courts determined that there were no legal grounds to pursue them. Mr. Machover, as a person who seems to speak with true conviction, and as a lawyer being paid by a client, naturally disagrees with these courts and may think that the law should be otherwise, but the courts of liberal democracies disagree with him. His response to these legal victories is to suggest that these cases were decided the way they were because "It is arguable that Israeli legal successes abroad have had nothing to do with the core merits of the cases concerned." Mr. Machover, however, does not make this argument.

Machover also suggests that Israeli courts are designed to provide immunity to those who would be prosecuted by the so-called "lawfare" cases in other jurisdictions. He points to situations where he believes that the Israeli courts have not done their job, but ignores he litany of cases where Israeli courts have made decisions that are anything but "subservient to the grinding machine of occupation and repression." Take for example the most recent decision allowing Palestinians access to a highway from which they had been barred for security reasons, decisions against soldiers for abuse of Palestinians, for land rights violations (see video), or for a list of other abuses where Israelis were found to have committed crimes.

Machover then points to this troubling incident, of Jewish groups in the United States supporting the dismissal of charges against a foreigner accused of human rights violations on the grounds that if the complaint is allowed, a flood of such cases may be brought against Israel in the US. Machover's point is that supporters of Israel must ally themselves with the worst violators of rights in the world to advance their positions because Israel's position is just as bad. He proposes that the world's worst most repressive countries would support an Israeli push to have universal jurisdiction laws reformed. What he does not consider, however, is that unlike these most repressive regimes, Israel is the country against which suits are regularly filed. Mr. Machover seems to be defeating his own argument that these cases against Israel are not politically motivated when he highlights how Israel seems to be lobbying to change universal jurisdiction laws because of the concerns it has, but other states do not.

What Mr. Machover ignores and fails to distinguish is that in the example he points to, the victims were punished merely for opposing the government, whereas in the Israeli context, cases are brought for injuries incurred in a war. Indeed, context is lacking from all of Mr. Machover's post. He suggests that terming cases against Israel as lawfare serves those who "want it to become lawful to use disproportionate force against civilians where they are proximate to what state actors identify as legitimate military and quasi-military targets." This is clearly not the case. There is no widely accepted suggestion that civilians should be faced with disproportionate force. Indeed, international law provides that civilian casualties should be minimized, but the law recognizes that mistakes occur in the fog of war and that "collateral damage" occurs and is not a violation of the laws of war.

Mr. Machover wants what everyone wants, a world without wars, or at the very least, a world where in wars, only combatants are hurt. The fact is, that this does not happen. If there were prosecutions in every case in which a civilian died in conflict, than the leaders of a great many countries would be standing in the docket: Canada, the US, UK, Israel, Russia, Georgia, basically every NATO country and many, many more. Mr. Machover seeks a utopia which does not exist in law or in reality and his goals of having the law act as a deterrent for violations should an Israeli be found guilty would not be realized with the pronouncement of a guilty verdict.

UK Attorney General Visits Jerusalem

2010-01-06T00:15:00.003-05:00

In Jerusalem on a quasi-official visit, the UK Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, has had meetings with Israeli officials relating to the recent attempts to arrest Livni in the UK, proposed changes to UK universal jurisdiction legislation and to give a lecture at Hebrew University entitled: "Lawfare – Time for Rules of Engagement?"

Though the Attorney General was short on specifics of what a new law would look like, there is the implication that the Attorney General them-self would be given a veto over any arrest warrants under universal jurisdiction laws. Reading British press, however, it sounds as though the law will be specifically written to say "Israelis shall be exempt." A circumstance which is highly unlikely.

If the AG is given veto over arrest warrants there are certainly grounds for concern as to the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the AG. The judiciary should be sealed off from influence by political considerations, but in this case, it is easy to imagine how political and other non-legal considerations would seep into the AG's decision making. As argued previously, however, cases of universal jurisdiction are almost by definition political cases and decisions may come down to something as simple as a consideration of which country will be too expensive to pursue. For example, the political pressure against arresting a Chinese official may make such an action too costly, but a country like Israel, may be less 'expensive' to take to court. This is a fine line the UK may be walking between injecting legislative, executive and other powers into the judiciary, and separating the three.

Problems With The Israeli Jordanian Peace Treaty

2010-01-03T23:28:00.003-05:00

An Israeli judge Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein has hit the nail on the head by pointing out that the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel has had only limited success because some of the clauses, including those related to cultural and religious exchanges have not been fully implemented.

The same argument made by Rubinstein about Jordan can also be made about Egypt. It is not enough for the governments of the countries in question to have non-hostile political relations, and the absence of war does not equal peace. What is needed is for the people of these countries to come to know one another as individuals, through things like student exchanges, and culturally, through things like art exhibits traveling through the region, or musical groups touring different communities. Unless the people of the region begin to see one another as peers, with similar basic interests and goals, then the peace between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt will never truly be ratified.

The judge points out how water has been a source of conflict between Jordan and Israel. This seems to be a strange claim. Perhaps during and prior to a final peace agreement negotiations over water issues were difficult, but even in this time of drought, they do not seem to be. As recent events illustrate, Jordan and Israel have been implementing their agreements on water quite well. These types of incidents serve as a bond between the two countries. One that will likely have a role in deepening ties, rather than widening them.

Also interesting in the judge's comments was that the Israeli signing of the Oslo accords with the Palestinians created trouble between Jordan and Israel (this, of course was prior to the signing of the peace agreement with Jordan.) The reason Jordan was so upset is best expressed in the following quote:

"The official Jordanian reaction to the surprise announcement of the Oslo accords was shaped by two main reservations. First, Jordanian officials felt "duped" by the PLO’s secret negotiations. While the PLO was negotiating secretly in Oslo, it had also been working with Jordan on coordinating committees for the Washington talks. Jordan had felt that it was the natural partner to link the Israelis and the PLO during in peace negotiations. However, no mention of the direct contacts between the PLO and the Israeli government under the aegis of Norway had been revealed to the Jordanians. Second, the Jordanians held reservations about the nature of the "interim" agreement. Jordanian leaders feared that Jericho might become a dumping ground for Palestinians who would then be eventually evicted to Jordan. King Hussein also wanted more information on what direction such the interim agreement was intended to head. However, once the King was briefed by Yasir Arafat on September 3, 1993, he gave his full support to the PLO and the Oslo agreement."

Basically, Jordan was upset because they felt that they had been sidelined from a role that should naturally have been theirs, that they were not kept in the loop and that they did not know how this development will affect them. The idea of Jordan acting as a mediator, however, is somewhat curious. Given that Jordan did not yet have peace with Israel, it's unclear how they could have been a mediator, unless of course, they had hoped to sign peace with Israel before Israel signed the Oslo accords.

In all cases, kudos to Supreme Court Justice Rubinstein for saying what needs to be said and shame on those in a position to remedy this situation why have not.

Jordan Asks Canada To Confiscate Dead Sea Scrolls

2010-01-01T17:51:00.005-05:00

On the eve of 2010, the Jordanian government sent a diplomatic note to the Canadian government asking it to seize an exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are currently on loan from Israel to the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) in Toronto. The basis for this request is that some of the scrolls had been housed in a Jordanian run museum in East Jerusalem until it was taken by Israel in 1967. Jordan claims that under a Protocol to the Hague Convention on the protection of cultural property, the Dead Sea Scrolls, having been taken from a museum that was under their control, should be--if not returned to Jordan--taken into Canadian custody until the dispute can be resolved.

The international legal document in question says that if a cultural property is "exported" from a country that has come into its possession from the occupation of a territory, then that 'importing' country should seize the property in question. This is what Jordan is asking. The Israeli position on this case, is that the scrolls have not actually been "exported." The Canadian law that came into force to ratify (for Canada) the Hague Protocols also speaks of the "export" of cultural property, but does not actually define the word "export." Canadian courts, however, have, albeit in different contexts. For example in this case, the courts have said that to export generally must have a commercial purpose of some kind, or at least have the intention of an item being permanently sent from one country to another. The case of a museum exhibit loaned from one country to another would therefore not meet the definition of export and so, it would appear that the international and domestic legal provisions relating to cultural goods do not hold up.

A few other points should be made about this latest request. The first one could be termed Jordanian "interest" in the dead sea scrolls. The Dead Sea scrolls are a cultural document that relate to Jewish culture. They include almost the entirety of the old testament and though they were found in territory that Jordan occupied, their link to a distinct Jordanian culture seems dubious. One could make a similar claim about Roman artifacts found in Israel, or in any other part of what was the Roman empire, for example, by suggesting their return to Italy. The presence of these artifacts do not necessarily relate to the culture of the modern state, but may speak to the history of that part of the world. The scrolls do, however, relate directly to Jewish history and the history of the Jewish people. Even if the law were to apply in this case, the results of its application would seem to be an absurd situation: documents, related to the Jewish people would be seized by Canada because another country, whose connection to the scrolls is geographical, questions whether artifacts of Jewish history belong in the custody of a Jewish state.

Moreover, the Jordanian interest in the scrolls seems to be somewhat new. If the scrolls were taken from Jordan in 1967, why has Jordan not been actively pursuing this claim more vocally since then? Jordan may have addressed cultural property when it made peace with Israel in 1994, but did not. Jordan could also have made similar diplomatic requests to the many countries where the scrolls have been exhibited since 1993. This does not seem to be the case either.

One reason for this new interest from Jordan may be the result of Palestinian pressure on Jordan to act. The Palestinian Authority, not being a state, is not a party to the protocol on cultural property the way Jordan is. When the exhibition in Toronto first opened, Palestinians protested that the scrolls had been illegaly taken from "Palestinian territories." They thought the entire exhibition was illegal and should be cancelled. To this claim, the same question can be asked: what is the Palestinian interest in obtaining what is clearly a Jewish document, especially when the Jewish state is and has been a good steward of these precious archaeological documents. The answer may be political.

If the scrolls were returned to Jordan, this would be an admission that at the time they were taken by Israel, Jordan was rightly sovereign over the land that they were taken from. Similarly, if the Palestinian claim that the scrolls should be returned to Palestine is upheld, then there is an acknowledgement that the land from which they were taken is Palestinian, not Israeli. In other words, the argument being made by Palestinians and Jordanians is that the scrolls belong to whoever held the land they were taken from (in this case, east Jerusalem) and so if it is found that the scrolls are Palestinian, then the land must be Palestinian too. The interest may be less about the scrolls and more about the land. Like the land, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority are saying that they don't know to whom it belongs, but they're quite sure that it's not Israel.

Of course, it's not Jordan either. The ironic element in this whole episode is that the last sovereign power over both the area the scrolls were taken from and East Jerusalem (prior to the unrecognized Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem) was probably the Ottoman Empire. When that empire collapsed, the British took over, but their status was as a mandatary--a guardian--not a sovereign. After the British, Jerusalem was to be international and the West Bank, Arab. In 1948 Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem in much the same way that Israel does now. So, the scrolls would be...Turkish?

For Canada's part, Foreign Affairs and International trade seems to be indicating that they're staying out of this one, and it seems, may just do nothing.

Happy New Year Israel! Love, Iran

2009-12-31T10:34:00.003-05:00

I got a bit of a kick out of this one (no pun intended!)

It's pretty short, so, full text below:

The Iranian Football Association inadvertently sent a New Year's
greeting to its Israeli counterpart on Thursday.

The greeting was
sent by e-mail from Mohammed Ardebili, who heads the Iranian Football
Association's foreign relations department.Army Radio managed to get hold of
Ardebili on the phone.

"This is a greeting sent to the entire word," he
said. "Are you speaking from Israel? I can't speak to you. This is a mistake,
this is a mistake."

Israel Football Association spokesman Gil Lebanony
told the radio station that although the IFA was surprised to receive the
letter, they did not hesitate in sending a response.

"Attorney Amir Navon, head of our legal department, actually received the
mail," he said. "He came into my office and asked me if it was a mistake. I
said, 'I don't know, but let's send a response'."

"So, we responded, 'We
thank you for you Happy New Year greeting and wish all of the good people in
Iran a happy new year,' and added a wink in the mail," Lebanony said. "We also
expressed our hopes that they will have a good year for soccer."

See everyone, that wasn't so hard!

World's Largest Desalinization Plant comes On-line in Israel

2009-12-30T02:35:00.005-05:00

The world's largest water desalinization plant has begun operation in Hadera, in Israel. The plant should be able to provide 300 million cubic meters of water every year which is just shy of one third of the water Israel's National Water Carrier currently provides. The new facility will be the cornerstone of Israel's new national water carrier which, rather than relying on natural sources of water such as the Sea of Galilee--already under heavy strain--will rely on desalinized water.

As a first point, it may not be true that this plant is the largest in the world. This article, for example, suggests that the largest water desalinization plant in the world just opened in Saudi Arabia. It's possible that this plant has overshadowed the Saudi one, or perhaps it's a different type of facility. It really is immaterial, but could nonetheless be an error in the original article.

Secondly, though desalinization can have negative environmental effects, this is a project that should be welcomed. Given the extreme damage being done to the sea of Galilee by the large amount of water being withdrawn from it, any small environmental impact in the Mediterranean could be eclipsed by the benefits of reducing pressure on the Sea of Galilee and on the Jordan river and Dead Sea which it feeds.

Thirdly, on a political level, the decrease in pressure on water sources in the east of Israel (sources shared with Palestinians and Jordan) means that there is just that much less to worry about when the time comes to share the resources that exist. Israel's new sources of water, should make it easier for Israel to give more freely of its other sources. This could help to smooth any tension that may exist over water resource allocation. On the Syrian front, this move may be helpful as well. If Israel can really produce a significant amount of its drinking water from desalinization, then Israel becomes that much less dependent on the sources of water in the Golan. It gives Israel greater flexibility on the question of water sources in the Golan. Sources which, at least until now, were very important to Israel.

These, of course, are hypothesis. Hopefully, Israeli decision makers will follow these technical developments on the political level with appropriate action.

Lawfare Against Hamas Could Legitimize Goldstone Report

2009-12-27T03:29:00.006-05:00

The latest salvo in the Israel-Hamas lawfare efforts taking place in Europe comes from Belgium. Organized by a "pro-Israel group" two Belgian lawyers have requested that the Belgian Federal Prosecutor to press war-crimes charges against Hamas officials in Belgium on behalf of 15 dual Belgian-Israelis who have been wounded by rockets and mortars from Gaza.

The organization behind this has alternately been reported as European Friends of Israel, whose website makes no mention of the case, and "the Israel Initiative." "The Israel Initiative" appears to be a very heavily right leaning group supporting a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but its site makes no mention of the case either. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also has no comment on the matter and their website does not speak to this issue either.

There is some mystery as to which group organized this attempt against Hamas, but the MFA's silence is perhaps more easily explained. The lawyers representing the 15 aggrieved individuals seem to be--as a main source of evidence of Hamas war-crimes--leaning heavily on the Goldstone report. The Goldstone report, however, was much maligned by Israel and was rightly challenged by many for its flaws, inaccuracies and omissions. It would be a difficult proposition for the Israeli government to support a case based on a document they wish simply did not exist.

This is the reason this latest attempt at lawfare is playing with fire. In the event that this attempt is successful and an arrest warrant is issued for the accused--to be executed should they travel to Belgium--and if the case does rely on the Goldstone report, then a court in a European, liberal democracy will have accepted this deeply flawed document as valid. If the document is to be attacked for its procedural flaws, for its lack of detailed investigation, inaccuracies and the like, then it cannot possibly be valid only when it cuts against Hamas but not when it cuts against Israel. The document either stands up to scrutiny and is in its entirety accurate and complete (biases aside) or it is deeply flawed and should be ignored for its multiple errors.

One should hope that if the case of these 15 dual citizens is successful that it can be one based on the fact of rockets being fired and the law that prohibits such indiscriminate attacks on civilians, not on the Goldstone report.

Lawfare Against Hamas in France

2009-12-24T01:20:00.005-05:00

In a case of what appears to be reverse "lawfare" the French media regulatory agency, the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA), has issued an official warning to Eutelsat, the carrier of the Hamas run television station al-Aksa TV.

The station is being accused of violating section 15 of the act governing the CSA which allows the body to sanction broadcasters that air content which can be considered to promote hatred or discrimination against groups identifiable by religion, nationality, gender and other criteria. It is not exactly clear what the offending content was, but al-Aksa TV is the station that broadcast children's programming such as this one, about how all Jews are evil, all Palestinians are righteous and that it is appropriate for a father to beat his son. Or this one, about how Benjamin Franklin had warned against the Jews and that Jewish slavery at the hands of the Pharaohs was not slavery at all, but an honest days work.

This is not the first time the CSA has taken such action. For example, they acted against the Egyptian station Al Rahma, also carried by Eutelsat. Again, in this instance, the offending content is not clear, but this clip offers a window into the type of content that may have been offered. In the case of Al Rahma section 15 was again applied and the complaint appears to have been made by a French Jewish community organization.

The source of the complaint in the case of al-aksa TV is also not immediately obvious, but a Washington D.C. based group called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a right wing think tank which is one of the supporters of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media, issued a press release praising the French decision and highlighting it as a step in the right direction.

It would be interesting to have more information on what the specific offending content was in this case and who brought the original complaint forward. The promotion of hate and incitement to violence has no place in a democratic society and so this case is welcome.

Thanks to Jewlicious for finding this first.

Awesome Archaeological Discovery in Nazarth

2009-12-23T01:57:00.005-05:00

There is obviously a great deal I could write about these days between Schalit, and organ harvesting, I could keep quite busy, but given that I already am pretty busy these days, here's a relatively light posting about an archaeological discovery in Nazareth, watch the video if you don't care to read the article.

The article adds information from a University of Toronto historian who suggests that the discover is unremarkable and disagrees with the conclusions of the experts working on the dig in Nazareth.

With my limited knowledge I don't dare take sides, but the excitement of the discovery itself is not diminished, no matter who is correct. That this is a home that may have existed in Jesus Christ's lifetime, that he may have been familiar with this home and the family that lived in it is an amazing thought. Of course, the discovery in now way validates or invalidates any religious beliefs, but it is amazing to think of this incredibly significant historical figure perhaps visiting the home that has been discovered, or being acquainted with its inhabitants. It truly allows us to connect with history.

On another note, one o the things that always struck me about visiting Israel was that you would pass roadsigns for places like Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Hebron, and Jericho--all places of incredible significance to billions of people all over the world--and these signs are no different than the ones you see for the hamlet of Moose Creek, between Montreal and Ottawa. I always felt as though places like this should have big stars next to their names, in flashing lights, screaming "FOR GOODNESS SAKE, THIS IS JERUSALEM THE HOLIEST CITY IN THE WORLD!!!" But alas, I don't make road signs!

Let me take advantage of this timely discovery to wish all readers the very best of the holiday season, no matter which holiday you will be celebrating or have celebrated already. May 2010 bring us each, wherever and whoever we may be, peace, prosperity, health and happiness. All the best, whoever you are!

Hamas Supporting Arrest Attempts Against Israelis in Europe

2009-12-21T01:04:00.003-05:00

It appears that the attempt to have Livni arrested under universal jurisdiction laws in the UK were directly supported by Hamas. While it may not be the case that Hamas was behind the arrest attempts, in that Hamas says it did not hire the UK lawyers, they provided information which made the legal proceedings possible.

It's not suprising that Hamas would support cases such as the attempts against Livni going forward, after all, Israel is Hamas's enemy, why would they oppose any impediments imposed against Israelis? What is so particularly unseemly about this information is that these lawyers ostensibly defending the legitimate human rights of Palestinians are cooperating with a terrorist group. It is also telling how Hamas is taking advantage of the UK's jurisdiction to support those who would attack Israel. It seems, more plainly than other examples, to be clear evidence of how using universal jurisdiction in cases like the arrest of Livni are assymetrical warfare.

This support of lawfare by Hamas is perhaps the reason why alleged perpetrators of other violations of international law are not pursued by those who defend human rights in teh courts as they attempt to do when Israel is the target. It is perhaps that Hamas makes it so easy for supports of Palestinians and Tibetans lack the same resources to support the prosecution of Chinese officials that cases against the Chinese are essentially unknown.

Apparently, however, Livni is benefiting from a political bump as a result of the attempt to have her arrested.

Attempted Livni Arrest Prompting Legal Review in UK

2009-12-18T01:15:00.004-05:00

In the wake of the abortive efforts to have an arrest warrant issued for Israeli opposition leader Livni in the UK under universal jurisdiction laws the diplomatic exchanges continue and the UK seems poised to actually modify their legislation.

The question of the UK's application of universal jurisdiction had apparently long been on the agenda in talks between Israeli and UK officials. That the issue had not been rectified and had boiled over into an effort to have Livni arrested has opened a painful sore between the two countries and prompted harsh rebukes from Israel and embarrassed apologies from the UK.

Proposed changes to the UK's universal jurisdiction laws have already begun, with Whitehall--the UK foreign ministry--already examining a few options. As it stands, an arrest warrant can be issued by a judge in the UK based on a petition to the court. Any actual trial, however, would need to be approved by the UK Attorney General. One proposed change would be to require the Attorney General to approve even the arrest warrant.

Palestinian groups have responded forcefully to this, suggesting that the Goldstone report provided sufficient grounds to have Livni arrested and to stand trial and that it was inappropriate to have the political echelons apologize for a legally justified act by the courts. These critics are not entirely wrong and do have a valid point about political involvement in the judiciary. The courts must operate free of political influence and it is troubling to think that the political echelons may have a say in who the court tries or ignores. It is possible to conceive of a situation where someone accused of the most heinous crimes is allowed to travel the world with impunity because their arrest would have important political or economic (trade) impacts on the state that attempted to arrest them. It's true the Attorney General in the UK is an unelected official, but the office is appointed by the Prime Minister, so there is a level of political influence.

Cases of universal jurisdiction, however, are almost by definition not purely legal. These cases incorporate instances of international relations as one country will be judging a foreigner whose crime is not linked to the country in which they are being judged. There will likely be several parties with interests in a given case and it is easy to imagine that such cases would become highly politicized. Indeed, it is quite cynical of Palestinian groups to criticize British politicians for political involvement in the Livni episode when the attempt to have Livni arrested is itself a political, and not purely legal, move. Indeed, one lawyer who commented publicly on the story, Daniel Machover, is the founder of a group called "Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights." This group's stated mission is to use legal means to advance Palestinian self-determination, a decided political aim. (Note: To be clear, everyone, should support Palestinian Human rights and the human rights of all people. Full stop. This group defends these rights but seems to have a clear political goal.)

Turning this decision making about applying universal jurisdiction to the Attorney General seems like nothing more than a fig-leaf for political influence in the justice system. Such influence is widely seen as inappropriate in western legal systems. Perhaps the UK should do away with this illusion and clearly say what they want: a system of universal jurisdiction that can be applied selectively, sparing allied and targeting foes. Essentially, lawfare waged by the state. The reason they would never say such a thing is because it undermines the basis of legislative and executive non-intervention in the judicial branch.

Still though, it is extremely difficult to craft a system of universal jurisdiction, which is political by definition, that could not be used by interested political groups to harass opponents while at the same time, remaining judicially independent. This is a difficult legislative problem but one that could probably be best resolved by tying universal jurisdiction to existing rules in international law, for example, the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court. Such a solution would exempt nationals whose countries have not ratified the Rome statute and would only be triggered if the conditions of the Rome statute were met.

Has "Zionist" Become a Slur?

2009-12-17T01:28:00.006-05:00

This op-ed in the Jerusalem Post speaks to a sentiment I've had for some time. Reading the news, blogs and especially people's comments on public forums, having discussions in academic contexts, the term Zionism or Zionist, seems to have become a slur.

The number of times I've read comments about how Zionists are guilty of some act, or some conspiracy, the number of times I've seen attempted ad hominem attacks with the victim of the attack being called a Zionist, to somehow delegitimize them, and the number of times I've seen Zionism and Zionists denounced for ascribing to that idea is so large as to make these 'sightings' commonplace. When these comments appear, nobody bothers to say what they mean by Zionism or Zionists, but often, I've seen those who throw these terms around in a critical sense hurry to distinguish Zionism and Zionists from Jews, Judaism and Israel and Israelis. Each time I see one of the almost boilerplate screeds against Zionists or Zionism (a comment I see frequently on the CBC is that Zionism has launched a war to annex Palestine) my reaction is to speak out loud to the screen as I shake my head, "do you even know what Zionism means? Zionism is an idea, how can an idea wage a war?"

Many people who have come to spit out the word Zionism, like so much venom, probably don't really know what Zionism is. To rely on a simple dictionary definition, Zionism is: "a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel." I would submit that this statement could be simplified even further. I would suggest that Zionism be defined simply as Jewish nationalism. To expand on that, Zionism is the idea that the Jews are more than just a religion, but that they are a people who have a religion (the religion adhered to by the Jewish nation--the Jews--is Judaism). Being a nation, a people, like all other nations Jews want their own nation state, just like Indians, Japanese, Vietnamese, Mongolian and Italian people have. Naturally, Jews would want this nation state to be in the land to which they have had a historical connection since the first moments of their recorded history as a nation, thousands of years ago. That land, is today known as Israel.

Zionism therefore is the idea that Jews should have what other nations have and seek, their own state. Of course, to leave the definition at that is overly simplistic. Zionism, Jewish nationalism, in its modern form has taken on many iterations. Religious Zionism, Cultural Zionism, Political Zionism, Labour Zionism, to name a few are all different interpretations of the same idea, Jews should have a state, just like any other people.

It is because Zionism can be so simply defined, and because Zionism is in many ways a search for parity, equality for Jews when compared to other nations, it becomes so frustrating to see this concept turned into an insult, to see the label of Zionism converted into a scarlet letter of sorts.

I think that its important, when being labelled a Zionist in a derisive fashion, or when Zionism is referred to as somehow inherently evil, or illegitimate, the response should be not to shrink away from and deny a tie to the term, but to be clear about what the word Zionist means and turn the question around. Ask whoever would use the word in a negative context if they are equally vehement in their criticism of the nationalism of other nations and if not, why does Jewish nationalism get to be the lucky target? Or, failing that, take heed of Gil Troy's defense of Zionism and remember that the term ought not to be a source of shame or embarrassment, but can well be a source of pride.

The Latest Lawfare: Attempt to Arrest Livni in the UK

2009-12-16T01:26:00.006-05:00

There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding recent reports that Israeli opposition leader Livni cancelled a trip to the UK because, supposedly, a British court had been petitioned to issue an arrest warrant for Ms. Livni for alleged war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza. The arrest warrant, had it been issued, would have been allowed under British universal jurisdiction laws which allow the prosecution of individuals who are not British citizens. As a result of the confusion surrounding this incident the UK ambassador to Israel was called out onto the carpet in Israel and the British foreign minister admitted his embarrassment and apologized to the Israeli government for this episode pledging to examine British Universal jurisdiction to prevent any repeats.

A few points are worth making here. First, it is unclear who was seeking to press charges and what these charges were. The UK does have universal jurisdiction, as summarized here by Human Rights Watch, but the charges in this case are unknown. The mystery surrounding this whole episode is itself disturbing. Generally, Western legal systems seek to afford the most transparent process and procedures possible. Certainly, procedural battles are a key component of most legal disputes and lawyers do play underhanded tricks on one another, but the rule tends to be that it is unacceptable to take any of the parties by surprise. In this case, the procedures were obscured and were cloaked in secrecy so as to catch Livni and the Israeli government off-guard. Indeed, given all the secrecy surrounding the legal proceedings, it is unclear how Livni was tipped off about the potential warrant in the first place.

The British government has, in the wake of this affair, suggested that they will review how their system of universal jurisdiction is applied. Currently, if there were to be charges under the UK Geneva Conventions Act, for example, charges could be brought by anybody against anybody for alleged breaches that took place anywhere. The decision to proceed with these charges, would ultimately rest with the UK Attorney General. The Attorney General's decision to prosecute or not would seem to be a safeguard against frivolous cases, but the reality is, anyone can still present a case to the court and it seems that an arrest warrant may still be issued before the Attorney General makes the decision to proceed or not. It is hard to imagine how a law can be crafted so as to maintain the Independence of the judicial branch while allowing for legitimate charges to be brought against actual war criminals, for example the president of the Sudan, while politically motivated cases like this attempt against Livni would not be allowed.

The UK Foreign Minister called this incident "insufferable" and made remarks about the importance of Israeli leaders being able to travel freely to build relations and work towards peace. Importantly, the statement speaks only of Israeli leaders, not, ordinary citizens. If British laws are reviewed to avoid situations like this one, given the Minister's statement, would Livni be any more of a legitimate candidate for arrest? It would seem so given the careful wording used by the Minister. It is Israeli leaders who are to be protected. This raises the question of how do the citizens, politicians and soldiers, who have served their country in a war, fighting in asymmetrical conflicts where civilians have been killed receive protection from frivolous lawsuits aimed at delegitimizing them and punishing them for justifiable actions? Perhaps the best, and simplest solution would be to limit the application of universal jurisdiction only to those cases where the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant. This way, only when a citizen of a country that recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC arrives in a foreign country can they be arrested. If the ICC had no jurisdiction, then no other country would be allowed to make arrests. This solution is not perfect, but is better that massive lawfare--asymmetrical warfare waged in the courts--which seeks to tie Israel's hands and prevent it from doing what force of arms cannot.

This attempt at arresting Livni is lawfare for several reasons. It is aimed at painting her, Israel and the war against Hamas as a war crime. It ignores Israel's investigations into its own conduct in the war against Hamas. It is meant to have the effect of limiting Israelis' ability to travel, to conduct diplomatic relations and is meant to make Israeli leaders hesitate before using military force in self defense. Without delving into a discussion of the events in Gaza during the war, it is difficult to imagine an Israeli response that would not have provoked these types of arrest attempts. Even if no civilians had been killed, even if no civilian infrastructure had been damaged, even if there was no controversy over the types of armaments used, it is difficult to imagine that there would now be no legal attempts of this type.

This timely article in the Jerusalem Post refers to these legal swipes at Israel as "Judicial-Jihad" because of the "Islamist" bent of their authors. This is not a fair term. Such cases are not religiously motivated, they are not "Islamist," they are political. So while the terminology the author uses is incorrect, the foundation of his argument is. There is an ideology behind these cases of lawfare that will not easily yield. The courts are merely the newest battlefield for this ideology and the vanguard of lawfare guerrillas is learning that where Hamas may have a hard time physically preventing the IDF from striking a Kassam rocket launcher, they can pin down the decision makers behind that strike in a sea of doubt and hesitation about authorizing what may be a perfectly legitimate action.

Modern Archaeology From Israel Speaks to History Surrounding Hanukkah

2009-12-13T18:19:00.005-05:00

Given that it is the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, it is somewhat fitting that some of the latest and most interesting archaeological discoveries to have been announced in Israel relate, at least indirectly to the Maccabean revolt that is the basis for the Hanukkah story and to the Hasmonean kingdom which rose after the revolt.

In the first story, a discovery was made of inscribed tablets originating from the seat of the Seleucid empire ruling over what is today Israel, and appointing a new tax collector for the region. This tax collector, however, was granted new authorities to collect taxes from religious shrines, including the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Being dated to eleven years prior to the Maccabean revolt, this inscription is said, by archaeologists, to represent a break with the contemporary status quo which allowed religious life to be free from taxation and which was likely the first step towards open hostility between the Jews and the Hellenistic Seleucids in power.

The second story relates to what happened after the Hanukkah story and the Maccebean revolt. After the success of the revolt an independent, Jewish Hasmonean kingdom was established. Recent discoveries and analysis of the ruins of a fortress, in what is today southern Israel's Negev desert, have lead archaeologists to conclude that this Jewish kingdom extended well into the Negev. The fortress, built along the Nabatean trade route between Petra and the port of Gaza, was originally though to have been Roman, but now appears to have been a Jewish fort aimed at disrupting the presences of the Jews' Nabetean foes. To archaeologists, this now means that they have to totally redraw the map of what the Hasmonean kingdom and been previously believed to be.

It's always fascinating when modern science and scholarship can create real links to people and events that are the basis of religious and cultural beliefs.

Is the Golan Referendum Law Simply to Save Political Lives

2009-12-13T04:04:00.003-05:00

The Knesset has recently voted to advance legislation that would make the handover of any land under Israeli sovereignty (i.e. Israel proper or annexed land--such as parts of Jerusalem and the Golan heights) subject to an Israel-wide plebiscite.

The bill, which is not yet law but has merely passed its first reading has several hurdles to clear before it becomes binding legislation, but it is already being discussed and receiving criticism and praise in some quarters as though it is. Those who support the bill (and that includes the majority of the Knesset) are happy that the final decision of renouncing territory are placed in the hands of citizens and not the elected officials and note that the possibility of corruption or bribery is removed.

Those who oppose the bill note that it is superfluous. They argue that the reason a parliament exists is to make exactly these sorts of decisions. They also make the point that internationally, it appears as though Israel is creating obstacles for itself and is tying its own hands when it comes to making peace.

Residents of the Golan are confident that the rest of Israel would never vote the territory away and so any referendum would only confirm what they know. Syria makes the point that Israel has no right to vote on giving back something that was never theirs to hold. For their part, Israeli commentators suggest that the bill itself is a clever signal to Syria and the Palestinians that they had better make a deal fast, before the law requires a referendum for ratification, or they could see their chances at a generous offer, which may be unpopular in Israel, slip away.

It is very difficult to see what good could come from legislation such as this. The whole thing stinks. A government is elected to make difficult decisions, it is elected with a mandate to handle issues such as this. There is something very suspicious about a government saying that now, of all the issues it decides on, this one will require the whole population to vote. It would be less suspicious if the law in Israel were that all treaties were subject to a referendum for ratification. They are not. The peace with Egypt and the Oslo agreement were not subject to voting either. It's true that no territory that had been annexed was handed over in these agreements, but the Golan heights and Jerusalem were each captured in a war and so should not have been annexed anyway.

It's also worth noting that for both Oslo and Egypt, the image behind the peace lost their lives (Nasser and Rabin.) Perhaps that reality is what motivates this Knesset. Perhaps the motive has nothing to do with international relations or with wanting peace or not. Maybe the real concern is fear, fear at having the legacy of seceding 'Israeli soil' and being held responsible for it. With a referendum, politicians may have little role at all in the final agreement. Negotiators (who will likely be high ranking bureaucrats) will hammer out a deal, the public will vote on it, and the politicians will rubber stamp the whole thing. This is the ideal way to avoid the responsibilities associated with leadership.

The correct response to this ought to be simply: "too bad." Representatives are elected to lead and to represent. If the above analysis is at all correct, and avoidance of real responsibility is the reason behind this bill, then the Knesset should resign and let someone made of tougher stuff take the mantle.

Ghajar Residents Protest Against Israeli Withdrawal

2009-12-12T00:39:00.002-05:00

In what should be a reminder to the powers that be that they are playing with the lives of ordinary people, residents of Ghajar staged a protest in their village against the possibility of being split in the event of an Israeli withdrawal.

Israel has already indicated its intention to withdraw the IDF from the northern portion of the village which lies in Lebanon and a flurry of recent meetings between Lebanese, UN and Israeli officials have fueled rumours that the withdrawal is imminent. It's this rumour mill and uncertainty surrounding the fate of the town that has residents concerned enough that they presented the commander of the UN forces in the region with a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urging him not to allow the town to be divided.

So concerned are residents about the fate of their town, their ability to tend their fields and carry on their lives as they do now that that have indicated their willingness to die rather than to see their town divided and for them to be as "refugees" in Lebanon. To be clear, these residents don't really care to be Israeli either, even though they have Israeli citizenship. They want to be Syrian, but worry not only about the division of their town but also about the threat to their lives should Hezbollah be able to enter the region.

The bottom lines in all this are that even Ghajar residents have no idea what their fate will be, that they have serious and legitimate concerns about what will happen to their village if it is split and that the decisions being made at levels they do not seem to have an input into, may not work as smoothly as hoped.

There is also a question of law at play here. These residents of Ghajar have Israeli citizenship. The country in which they have citizenship, however, proposes to turn them over to a foreign (indeed, a hostile) country where Israel will no longer be able to protect them. It is not clear if Lebanon will grant them citizenship or if they will retain any of the privileges of Israeli citizens. This is also a question of self determination. With what seems to be little or no consultation with the people of the town, their fate is simply being decided. So, even if the return of the village is in compliance with UN resolution 1701 on the matter, the question of the rights of citizens and of people to determine their own fate, remains.

Of course only time will tell what the powers that be have in store for the people of Ghajar, but any solution must consider the wishes of the people that live in the town, their right to self determination, their privileges as Israeli citizens as well as Israeli and Lebanese obligations under international law. It is indeed an interesting twist that it is now Hezbollah and Lebanon--critical of Israel for occupying the Palestinian territories--who are seeking to occupy people who don't want to be Lebanese and Israelis who are being criticized by Arabs, who at least in the short term, want to remain under Israeli sovereignty.

Will Imported Arabic Books be Allowed in Israel?

2009-12-10T01:16:00.003-05:00

The Israeli Minister of Finance has objected to a proposed bill which would allow Arabic books published in "enemy" states to be sold in Israel. The reason for his objection is unclear and it is also unclear if this objection will actually halt the bill in its tracks or if it may move forward despite this opposition.

There was recent talk in Israel about lifting this ban on the import of books from Arab countries, especially Syria and Lebanon. There is such a small demand for Arabic language books in Israel that it is not worth the effort of many publishing houses in Israel to translate certain books. Indeed, even Arabic translations of Israeli authors are hard to find in Israel and are more often than not, sourced from places like Syria and Lebanon.

The catalyst for this bill seems to be a bookseller called Kol Bo (everything inside) which was championed by an Israeli NGO that advocates for the Israeli Arab Minority--Adalah. This Israeli Arab had sold and imported Arabic books for some time until his permit was recently cancelled because these books come from "enemy" sources. The new bill proposed to do away with this enemy state legislation and instead allow book imports with limits on books that were offensive, such as holocaust denial.

Opposing this bill seems nothing less than discriminatory and unjustified. Here is a large, linguistic and ethnic minority who want books in their own language. Provisions exist to ensure that hate materials don't make it into the country, what's the problem? Obviously the book trade had continued by Kol Bo when they had a permit, so it's not like there's any concern of suddenly contributing to an enemy economy, but the minister's objection in this case is nonsensical.

Books are vehicles for culture, for knowledge and for understanding. Preventing their import because they come from the wrong side of a line, punishes a minority who should be allowed to read in their first language, but also means that the culture (including Jewish-Israeli culture) and exchange that could normally have taken place in a mutually beneficial way, is being held up.

Shame on the Israeli Minister of Finance. Try opening borders and minds and at least, be fair!

Ghajar Withdrawl, Any Day Now. Maybe.

2009-12-08T01:18:00.004-05:00

As removed from the public eye as they seem to be able to keep things, Israeli officials have been preparing to withdraw from the town of Ghajar which straddles the Israeli Lebanese border.

Israeli officials have reportedly met with UN officials within the last several days to, reportedly, discuss the details of the Israeli withdrawal. The planed withdrawal, which calls for UN peacekeepers to administer the town so as to prevent Hezbollah filling any power vacuum left by an Israeli withdrawal still leaves some question marks. For example, what will be the fate of the residents of Ghajar who hold Israeli citizenship but will find themselves on the Lebanese side of the line? The answer to this question is not clear since they are Israeli citizens and are about to be essentially "handed over" to a foreign country. It's not clear that they would be given Lebanese citizenship at all.

The Ghajar question was also brought up at recent high level talks between French and Israeli officials. High level Israeli officials seem to be supportive of the withdrawal, which would bring Israel into compliance with UN resolutions on the matter. There are dissenters, of course, who are opposed to such a withdrawal, but they appear to be in a minority.

It's unclear when the withdrawal will take place, but it appears that Israel seems to be preparing to go and is capable of leaving Ghajar at any time. One reason for the withdrawal is that some suspect it will help to bolster the Lebanese government by handing them a 'deliverable' which they can tout to their people, a concession from Israel that was not obtained by violence or by Hezbollah. The reality is though, nobody is sure what will really happen because, after all, Hezbollah has been known to target UN peacekeepers and it has even been suggested that they are preparing some new cross border raid.

This being said, Israel should withdraw. Part of the town that is not Israeli, should not be held by Israelis. Ghajar is said to have little or no strategic value, it is not economically or politically very significant and returning the town is an obligation under UN resolutions. It also has the international relations bonus of giving the French a deliverable in the region while potentially hurting Hezbollah. Win, win, win, win!

The question now, is when will it all happen.

Lemon Tree: A Movie Worth Watching

2009-12-05T19:11:00.002-05:00

I recently watched the movie Lemon Tree. The story is about an Israeli minister who moves into a home which neighbours a lemon grove owned and tended by a Palestinian widow. With the arrival of this VIP, Israeli security forces decide that the grove provides excelent cover for would be terrorists and impose all number of security measures aimed ultimatley, at uprooting the trees. The Palestinian woman decides to fight the restrictions imposed on her in court and ends up in a difficult legal battle.

In the words of the movie's director, Lemon Tree is supposed to be a story of people fighting over things that they could have easily resolved had they just spoken to one another. The movie tries to make this point throughout by showing the sincerity of the Minister's wife in trying to make some form of contact with her widowed neighbour. It also uses a somewhat clever device of a soldier in a watchtower, who can see everything as he whiles away his guard duty studying for an exam in logic.

The story is supposed to be based on a true story and there's some information about it here. It involved Shaul Mofaz, the then defense minister of Israel and an incident with his neighbours olive grove. More true, however, is the way of life, the harship for Palestinians, security fears of Israelis that are shown in the movie. Roadbloacks, terrorist attacks, and ordinary peopel trying to live seem fairly represented in the movie.

What is less overt, however, are the metaphors the movie tries to create. In the movies depiction of life for the Palestinian woman and her neighbours it is clear that one is supposed to udnerstand that Israelis live their lives in a cavelier, disconnected, unconcerned way while Palestinians live in poverty and have deeper, more meaningful relationships between eachother--relationships centered on family, community, morals, etc.--than do Israelis, where it seems that only Israeli women show such sensitivity.

The point being, this movie is ostensibly about how people talknig to one another would have solved this dispute between neigbours, but it does not reflect this and this is not necessarily the reality. This movie has clear good guys and bad guys and it is very clear that the bad guys are the Israelis, or at least Israeli men. This is what the subtext of the film seems to be. We don't meet any real Palestinian bad guys in this movie, but there are some less than savory Israeli characters.

The above are just my thoughts on the movie. I would recommend watching it and developing ones own opinion about it. It is, after all, a movie, not reporting and it does not need to be fair, or balanced, but I would question the reality it presents.

Freedom of Speech Threatened at the UN

2009-12-03T08:03:00.004-05:00

Here's a question: Does the UN Human Rights Council tolerate free speech if that speech means criticism of itself?

Answer:

IDF Raises Internet Defence Unit

2009-12-01T21:25:00.004-05:00

I've written before that the Internet is a cesspool of hatred. Antisemitism abounds on the Internet and much of it is tied to supposed criticism of Israel. It should never be suggested that criticism of Israel is illegitimate and that's not my purpose, but while its true that most criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, it's probably true that all antisemites are critical of Israel.

Much of this hatred and indeed much criticism I've seen of Israel on various blogs or comments on news stories of major media outlets tends to be very uninformed. People make decisions based on partial information or oversimplified explanations of complex events. As a case in point (and I don't mean to discuss this issue in detail here) some of the comments on this story, run on the CBC suggest that a Nazi war criminal should not be tried in Germany because he was acquitted in Israel. In Israel, however, he was acquitted of a different accusation than the one he is on trial for in Germany. This detail seems to have escaped many CBC readers who instead think an old man is being prosecuted for no reason.

This sort of ignorance can, dangerously, lead to hatred. It's not hard to imagine a person who misunderstood this case thinking that this case was not an act of justice, but an act of vengeance and a cruel persecution of a frail old man by Jews, who else? Ergo, in the mind of this ignorant (not stupid, ignorant) person, the Jews are doing something horrible to this poor old man.

This long introduction is meant to set the ground for this story from Ha'Aretz that the IDF will be recruiting soldiers to fight against misinformation and hatred on websites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. This would be another plank in the Israeli platform of public diplomacy, or, as it is called in Israel "Hasbara" (explanation.)

This is a somewhat double edged sword. On the one hand, more accurate information and a real counter to hatred and misinformation is welcome. On the other hand, many people on such websites that I've come across have deeply entrenched positions and are unlikely to be swayed. Indeed, often whenever there are many pro-Israeli comments on a given site, in an attempt to discredit these comments, someone invariably brings up Israel's history of public diplomacy and not only by the government, but also by groups like CAMERA, MEMRI, and Just Journalism. If these IDF bloggers are to become prolific, there is also the chance that their lines will become rehearsed and sound like talking points, which again hurts their credibility.

It is, however, an unfair criticism that just because the IDF has a staff of bloggers/facebookers/twitterers that the comments these people make should be discarded. A fact is a fact. 1+1=2, no matter who says it and if this IDF team is writing the truth, then that's helpful. It should also be pointed out though that many governments practice public diplomacy and though different means. Canada (and here), the United States and Australia all come to mind as countries that have made use of public diplomacy though a wide range of methods. Perhaps they have not developed anything akin to what the IDF is developing, but its questionable that these countries come under the same online derision as Israel.

If this Israeli effort can put more accurate facts into the public domain to combat ignorance, the breeder of hatred, than it is to be lauded. If, on the other hand, however, it appears too fabricated or even resorts to producing misinformation, then it will have defeated itself--a self inflicted wound.

Turkish Israeli Relations No Longer a Crisis Due to Commerical Contract

2009-11-30T01:00:00.004-05:00

Last week an Israeli Minister, Ben-Eliezer, headed to Turkey to help mend fences between the two countries which have recently found their relations to be more strained and chilly than they had been in previous times. Outwardly, the meeting seems to have been a success with the Turkish foreign minister declaring the crisis in diplomatic relations to be over and announcing a willingness to pick up where the two countries left off, as opposed to a new beginning.

On the sensitive question of Turkey's role as a mediator in peace talks between Israel and Syria, despite statements by Netanyahu and Leiberman that Turkey could not be trusted as a mediator, the Turkish government acknowledged that Israel had officially requested Turkey to resume this role.

What was not the focus of the Israeli media that reported on this supposed rapprochement but which seems to be front and centre in Turkish media and is perhaps the true key to this "crisis resolution" related to drones. In 2005 Israel signed a contract with Turkey to provide 10 highly advanced Heron unmanned areal vehicles for the Turkish military. Delivery of these vehicles was significantly delayed and had been a source of contention between the two countries. The drones, which were due last year are finally on track to be delivered and according to Turkish media, this breakthrough of a commercial/military dispute has been the catalyst for the removal of many other contentious issues between the two countries.

This may well be the case, that the drones alone were the cause of such tension, but it's difficult to imagine that such a public international dispute would play out merely over a contract. Indeed, it's very possible that the roots of the conflict lie in a more profound ideological position adopted by the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. A quick scan of recent news discussing the Turkish Prime Minister shows an increasing alignment with Islamic and Arab countries, popular support for his rants and outbursts against Israel and a drift away from Europe and the west. If this is the real direction the winds are blowing in Turkey, it's hard to imagine that a contractual dispute being resolved between Israel and Turkey will truly bring relations to where they were.

Why so Secret about Ghajar?

2009-11-28T01:03:00.002-05:00

Israel's plans for the town of Ghajar, Lebanon, remain obscure.

UNIFIL maintains that it has not received any official notification from Israel of any plans to withdraw from any part of the town. So, as far as the UN is concerned, things are status quo. Nonetheless, an obscure statement published in a Lebanese newspaper suggests that Israel has informed UNIFIL that they are ready to withdraw from Ghajar in a matter of hours. What makes this so obscure is that it's unclear if it means that Israel is about to withdraw, or that once the order if given to withdraw, it can be done quickly.

Meanwhile, on the domestic Israeli political front, the the Arab, Likud Member of the Knesset, Kara, continues to rail against the idea of any Israeli steps away from Ghajar. He warns against turning over any security along Israel's border to UNIFIL who he called "doll" soldiers--either to imply they were puppets being controlled or they were as effective as dolls, or both. As he rages, Lieberman the foreign minister, fumes and smolders that any news of any withdrawal from Ghajar has made the papers at all. The withdrawal, which many speculate Israel wants to make so as to reduce international criticism of/pressure on it was supposed to be kept very secret. Lieberman is so angry that any news of this story made it to the public that he now wants his staff and the cabinet to take polygraph tests to see where the leak is from.

This of course begs the question, why is this so secret? After all, this is not the first time a withdrawal from Ghajar has been discussed. On e reason to keep this quiet may have been that Lieberman, or someone else in the government (Kara, maybe?) is trying to scuttle the planed withdrawal and Lieberman would hate to raise expectations and then come off looking like the bad guy if the deal fails. Maybe Liberman is concerned about how such a withdrawal may look to his ultra nationalist base and he was hoping that any withdrawal could happen quietly, without too much media attention.

There are perhaps also security concerns. Maybe Israel wants to sneak agents into Lebanon through Ghajar before the opportunity is lost. Perhaps raising this in the media will place Lebanon on higher alert for such infiltrations. Perhaps Israel is concerned that Lebanon or Hezbollah will try to take advantage of an imminent withdrawal, trying to sneak their people into the town. Or, even worse, perhaps Hezbollah would use the opportunity of a withdrawal to attack Israel or Ghajar, to make the withdrawal appear as though it's happening under fire or to simply draw a connection between their actions and the recovery of Lebanese land.

Given the reaction to this story, it will be interesting to see if it ever even comes up in the media again, but if it does hopefully the next story will be that Israel has pulled out of Ghajar.

Israeli Official Meetings in Oman and Morocco

2009-11-26T02:05:00.005-05:00

High ranking Israeli officials have made appearances recently in two Arab countries with whom Israel used to have ties.

Piggybacking onto a conference dealing with desalinization in the middle east, top Israeli diplomats met with officials in Oman. These talks were officially considered secret, and there is little information available on their content. Nonetheless, not too long ago, Oman was one of a small number of Arab countries being pressured to normalize relations with Israel if Israel froze its settlement construction. As it happens, a settlement construction freeze was recently announced, just after the Oman meeting. It's not clear that there was any connection between the meeting in Oman and Netanyahu's declaration of the freeze, but the delegation to Oman contained some extremely high ranking officials of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that a diplomat of that level of seniority would have the authority to make certain agreements or carry high level messages. The coming days or weeks may tell if perhaps Oman agreed to certain aspects of normalization in exchange for the 10 month freeze.

On the other side of the Arab world, in the Magrheb, leader of the Israeli Opposition Kadima party, Tzipi Livni attended an international economic conference in Morocco, a country Israel once had beneficial relations with. There was much criticism of her visit since the Israeli government was uninvited at the last moment because it had approved the construction of 900 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. It's especially interesting that the invitation to Livni stood because apparently, she supported the Gilo construction. Nonetheless, the conference provided a unique opportunity for Livini to pass on the Israeli-non-partisan-message that Israel wants peace and that the two state solution is the goal that should be aimed for.

Though quite distinct from one another, these two cases may be seen as a trend of sorts. Both Oman and Morocco are countries that have no real economic or military interest in not having ties with Israel, but perhaps have domestic political concerns. It's quite possible that the ordinary people in these countries may be more inclined to identify with Palestinian Arabs if even their governments want to try to build relations with Israelis. Dialogue is clearly possible and is clearly a good thing and economic ties will no doubt be useful in beginning to build a symbiosis of sorts that can lead to a further increase in relations. If the hatred amongst the people, however, remains as deep as it is (as recently illustrated by the Egypt-Algeria hacking incident) then there will remain a long way to go. It's positive that Israel can build political ties with these states, but it will need to start winning hearts and minds with cultural exchanges, demonstration of what is good in Israeli society and a sincere openness to the Arab world and to accept cultural and other imports from the Arab world, just as Israel would like to export its positive image to them.

Withdrawl From Ghajar, Lebanon Finally Imminent?

2009-11-24T01:02:00.003-05:00

After being out of the news for almost four months, the question of the tiny town of Ghajar on the Israeli-Lebanese border is again a subject of high level political discussion. In a vote to take place on November 25th, 2009, the Israeli cabinet is expected to vote on (and probably approve) of a plan to withdraw from the northern (Lebanese) portion of the divided town and essentially implement a plan established by UNIFIL about a year ago.

The UNIFIL plan would have Israel withdraw from the town, have UNIFIL forces take up positions around the town, with a small internal police force, while all residents (who are Arabs) would maintain their Israeli identity cards. No barrier would be built dividing the town as residents have been explicit that they do not want any such barrier.

So far, it seems that Israel has not informed the Lebanese or UNIFIL of their plans to withdraw, but that's likely because the Israeli cabinet has not yet voted on the question. When the vote does come, it may face some vocal opposition. A Likud, Druze MK Ayoub Kara has dramatically pledged that he would fight even until his "last drop of blood" to prevent an Israeli withdrawal from the town. This position is probably taken because of the fear expressed by some Ghajar residents about what could happen to them--as Israeli citizens--if Hezbollah developed a presence in the area. Some residents have indicated that they actually fear for their lives.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu seems to have made up his mind and his decision is the right one. There is little or no strategic reason to hold on to Ghajar and if this small, relatively insignificant town is causing such extra tension, than certainly returning it, in compliance with the UN resolutions that gave UNIFIL their mandate, is the right thing to do. This is an easy one to get right and hopefully the stupidity and bluster of the likes of Kara will not have any impact at all.

Algerian Sports Fans Use Israel to Insult Egypt

2009-11-22T14:07:00.006-05:00

I don't pretend to have any special knowledge or insight into Arab culture, but this story trikes me as a stark example of the feelings that need to be overcome before there can be real peace in the region.

As explained here, Egypt and Algeria have seen their fair share of (probably really limited) civil unrest in the wake of World Cup Qualifying soccer (football) games between the two countries.

In one show of partisanship an Algerian hacker broke into the Egyptian Football team website and posted an Egyptian flag with a Star of David on in. He added the comment "You ******* deal with Israel all the time, you are not men."

In other words, the highest insult to masculinity and honor that this Algerian hacker seems to be able to proffer is that Egypt and Israel have dealings. I imagine that the elimination of this feeling that a nation's honor is assailed by dealing with Israel in any way would go a long way in taking that first step towards positive, low level relations which could eventually lead to a more lasting peaceful situation in the middle east. When such an option is foreclosed because of the fear of not being a man, it's hard to see how any progress can be made.

Attempts to Mend Israeli and Turkish Fences

2009-11-22T11:09:00.004-05:00

Though in the last year or so, since Operation Cast Lead, relations between Israel and Turkey have been cool, recent events have highlighted that despite the outward posturing, there remains a complex relationship between the two states that is not so easily extinguished.

For example, despite the incidents which may lead one to conclude that things were not well between the two countries, they recently held military search and rescue exercises involving the Jordanian army as well in Turkey. This drill brought to mind memories of another, larger, NATO drill in which both Turkey and Israel were supposed to participate in recent weeks but to which Israel was "un-invited." This sudden change of heart was interpreted by many to be a slap in the face to Israel and a sign of Turkey's increasing criticism of and distancing from Israel since Operation Cast Lead. There may be some credibility to this interpretation, but the Turkish explanation for the cancellation also holds water.

In 2005, Israel Aerospace Industries signed a $150 million deal with Turkey to provide unmanned aerial vehicles for the Turkish military. This deal, however, has been hit by a series of delays and the Turks are apparently becoming quite frustrated with the finger pointing and attempts to deflect blame by the Israelis. The Israelis insist they have respected every clause of their contract and the delay is Turkey's fault, Turkey insists that Israel has been making up (bogus) excuses for their inability to meet deadlines. In either case, the details of what is essentially a business dispute is not relevant. What's relevant, is that Turkey doesn't have the drones and the issue has, or is coming to a head. The Turks are at this point so upset that the order from 2005 remains incomplete that they have sent a ministerial level letter to Israel suggesting that the whole, valuable contract could be cancelled if Israel does not deliver within 50 days.

Another complex aspect of the countries' relationship is the mediation that it lead between Israel and Syria and the proximity the two sides apparently came towards a deal until Cast Lead put everything back to square one. Turkey reacted when recently France suggested they would be well placed to take up the role of mediator instead of, or with, Turkey. The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan suggested that Syria would not be willing to accept French mediation. The Israeli foreign minister, Lieberman, has stated he does not see how it's possible for Israel to accept Turkey as a mediator in further talks because the trust that existed between the two countries has been shaken.

Some, however, have been less deterred by Lieberman. Israeli Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the only Israeli minister to attend this year's "Republic Day" reception at the Turkish embassy, is heading to Turkey to mend fences. Ben-Eliezer is said to have particularly warm relations with Turkey and it is hoped that he can produce results. While he will be leading a trade delegation to Turkey, his goal is also to bring bilateral relations between the countries to what they were just over a year ago. His message will not only be one of trade promotion--an important facet of the bilateral relationship with trade in 2008 valued at over $1.5 billion--but the subject of mediation is also expected to come up. Ben-Eliezer will, it is reported, communicate that Turkey can continue in its role as mediator if relations return to the warm levels they once were.

These are just two demonstrations of the complex ties between the two countries. The question of water imports, for example, is another. It's interesting though that despite the reputedly poor relations and criticism of Israel by Turkey for Cast Lead, the Turks still want to purchase military equipment that was even used in the operation that Turkey is so critical of. It also cannot be ruled out that Israel is deliberately delaying delivery of the drones, as a reminder to Turkey that the two countries need one another, and that just as Turkey can proffer harsh public criticism, Israel can hold back on things that Turkey wants as well. Erdogan's reaction to the possibility of French mediation is also interesting. There may be more to this aspect of the relationship, but it seems as though Erdogan is actually concerned that this prestigious position as mediator may slip away from him. Acting as a mediator would work well for Turkey. It positioned it as an honest broker to both Arabs and Israelis, it made Turkey look moderate and a contributor to peace in the Middle East and probably gave it serious credibility in the EU. For this chance to slip away because of undiplomatic behaviour by Erdogan must be very troubling. In other words, it's in Turkeys interests to improve it's relations with Israel and be accepted as a mediator again.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of Ben-Eliezer's trip is and to watch any subtle changes in this complex relationship.

"Up Against the Wall": Poor Journalism on the Security Barrier

2009-11-19T19:51:00.005-05:00

Tonight, the CBC ran a documentary called "Up Against The Wall." Presented in the context of the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the documentary examines three walls that are the subjects of controversy. The first is the wall along the US-Mexico border which featured a segment where an interviewee was quoted as saying this wall's goal is to kill Mexicans. The second wall was one being built by Spain in its Moroccan Enclaves and the third, and this is no surprise, is the security barrier in Israel.

If the other segments of this documentary were as accurate as the portion on the wall in Israel, then this whole documentary will need to be written off as heavily slanted, inaccurate journalism.

The segment in questions begins by showing footage and background on the wave of suicide bombings in Israel at the start of the current decade. It mercifully spares the viewer from much of the carnage but makes the point that these attacks were horrific and drives home the point with a short interview of a man whose daughter was killed by a suicide bomber at the Sbarro Pizzeria in Jerusalem.

Then the viewer is presented with footage of Israeli soldiers monitoring the fence and explaining how they respond to incidents. There is also an interview with a former Israeli Military official who contends that the fence is nothing more than a land grab. A map of the settlements and the route of the fence within the "green line" demonstrates his point. A very short, inarticulate statement by an Israeli official contradicts that the fence is a land grab. This is the only opportunity given to an Israeli official to speak in support of the fence.

The segment then turns to shots of the wall, the ugly, imposing concrete section of the wall which actually only comprises 3% of the entire barrier. The many shots of the fence focus in on the graffiti it bears, notably some that compares the wall to the Warsaw Ghetto, a fallacious comparison if there ever was one, and a reflection of naivete on the part of the filmmaker. The viewer is also presented with shots of the many checkpoints set up in the West Bank and a woman living in a house that the wall passes directly in front of is interviewed. The viewer is also presented with interviews with Hanan Ashrawi a Palestinian legislator who rails against the wall as well as a Palestinian doctor/politician who critiques the checkpoints and notes the hardship they cause to ordinary people, notably pregnant women. There are also mentions made of Palestinians being cut off from their olive groves and images of Israeli civilians coming to help with the harvest. Strikingly, the viewer also is given a glimpse of the weekly, often violent clashes that take place between those opposed to the wall and the IDF on a regular basis.

The documentary makes the case at the outset that Israel has security concerns and that this was the impetus for the wall. The remainder of the 15 or so minutes for which it was discussed, however, focused almost exclusively on Palestinians explaining how it has caused them hardship. This hardship is impossible to deny and it would be callous to do so.

Nonetheless, the documentary fails to provide any continued justification for the wall. For example, no mention is made of the wall's effectiveness, that Israel began constructing the security fence in early 2003. In the year prior to that, there had been 55 suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. In 2003, after the wall there were 25, 14 in 2004, 2005 saw 7, in 2006, there were 4 and only one in 2007. These statistics are not in "Up Against The Wall." Neither is there any statement of fact about how much of the wall is merely a chain link fence with sensors, or a rebuttal of the allegation that the fence is a land grab or that its route has been subjected to the scrutiny of Israel's Supreme Court.

"Up Against The Wall", if it were a documentary about how the fence was impacting ordinary Palestinians, could probably be considered to have done a good job. The viewer is left with no doubt about the wall's impacts on Palestinians. Unfortunately, however, this was a documentary whose goal was to ask "Do walls, in fact, work?" In the case of the security barrier, though it does not provide a clear oral verdict, its imagery and editing alone lead to the false conclusion that no, this barrier does not work. In the documentary's last mention of the wall, it is suggested that terrorists continue to strike Israel with rockets, and footage of a rocket launch is shown. The viewer is then led to believe that despite all this hardship the wall has caused innocent Palestinians, it has been for naught.

The rockets, however, are launched from Gaza and the wall in question is constructed around the West Bank. These rockets exist independently of the wall which even terrorists acknowledge has made it difficult for them to carry our their murderous violence. Terrorism from the West Bank, where the wall exists has been dramatically curtailed by the presence of this security barrier and has saved lives. Not only Israeli lives, but the lives of Palestinians who could have been hurt if Israel retaliated for suicide bombings. "Up Against The Wall" does not lead the viewer to this clear and simple solution. Combine this with its fallacious comparison between the security barriers and all the others it discusses to the Berlin wall, and the naivete and lack of true historical understanding involved in the film-making becomes obvious.

Discrimination against Arabs, Ethiopians and Haredis in Israel

2009-11-19T00:43:00.003-05:00

Ynet and the JPost report on an upsetting study that demonstrates that even when highly educated and well qualified, Arabs, Haredi (orthodox) Jews and Ethiopians (in order of the most difficult to the least difficult challenges faced) have a very difficult time finding jobs in Israel. The report's findings demonstrate that banks, law firms and media are amongst some of the sectors where this discrimination is occurring.

The study was conducted by professors working at Ono College who presented their findings on November 10, 2009.

Certainly, deeply entrenched societal racism and prejudices are major factors in this discrepancy. It may be possible to imagine how the political climate sees Arabs ranked as the most discriminated against, there is no excuse for this type of prejudice. In one of the more revealing comments made to the researchers an advertising agency employee said (as reported in Ynet): "The haredi, Arab and Ethiopian needs many more things in order to be like a normal Ashkenazi." It's difficult to imagine how anyone can interpret this as a reasonable, liberal (as opposed to racist) view. What this respondent was saying was that everyone should just be mainstream, just like the majority and that this majority is itself incapable of tolerating or understanding why minorities would want to be different.

Another quote highlighting just how marginalized some of these groups have become and how unwilling the majority is to accept those who continue to make Israel a diverse country appears in the JPost: "There is a real concern about the awkwardness of shaking hands with a haredi Jew, telling army stories in front of an Arab and the 'coarse' Israeli mentality in front of the Ethiopian." If these groups were better integrated into society perhaps Israelis would learn that a diverse society must adapt to include minorities and weave them into the fabric of what the whole society is. Otherwise, what is being demanded is assimilation and a refusal to recognize real differences.

Aside from racism, another, and perhaps even larger, obstacle to the unemployed is that Israeli society has firmly entrenched networks of personal and family connections that many Israelis rely on to find work. While there's nothing wrong with a cultural practice of relying heavily on personal networks to help find work, it becomes problematic when qualified individuals from outside these networks cannot break into the system. If one needs a contact to secure a job, and these contacts may be based on anything from having served in the army together or grown up in the same neighborhood, and Arabs and Haredim rarely serve in the army while Ethiopians do, but may live in different neighborhoods, how can these groups expect to break into the job market without their own contacts. They key for these communities is to have their own champions, their own visible communities inside industry which can help see other members of the same group promoted.

The author of the study, speaking at a conference contradicted the optimistic works of the Minister of the Treasury, Dr. Yuval Steinitz, with the ominous warning that things were deteriorating, not improving, and that without major attitude shifts, things may go very awry. There may already be signs of this taking place. For example, recent Haredi riots in parts of Jerusalem and repeated complaints by Israeli Arabs of discriminatory treatment as well as sympathetic attitudes towards the last intifada are important warnings of what can happen should Israel fail to bring these disadvantaged groups into the mainstream and allow their communities to be full members of Israeli society.

Jordan and Israel Working to Protect Treasures of Human Heritage

2009-11-17T18:34:00.008-05:00

The middle east is obviously a region of profound archaeological richness. This includes not only the finds of caches of coins or statues, but also entire cities, places like Petra in Jordan and Masada in Israel.

These wonders (and Petra is truly, without a doubt a wonder of the world) face threats, however, and not only from the obvious sources--conflict and human destruction. Places like both Masada and Petra are at risk from earthquakes in the region and even (believe it or not) flooding.

Encouragingly, however, Israeli and Jordanian officials are beginning to work together and cooperate to help prevent and respond to archaeological disasters which may be caused by natural disasters. Apparently, an Israeli university professor from Ben Gurion University has developed a system to mathematically model past earthquakes in the region and the impacts that these earthquakes could have on sensitive sites.

These types of conservation measures and others were recently discussed at a UNESCO sponsored conference on the protection of archaeological sites. Held at the International Conservation Centre, newly founded in Acre.

While this conference does not seem particularly groundbreaking, I wanted to write about it just because I thought it was a nice example of how states could cooperate and build ties with one another for the purpose of protecting the common patrimony of mankind. Really, it was an interesting way for me to write about archeology and a case where it can have a positive impact on international relations.

Brazil's Innovative Water Conservation and Israeli Technology

2009-11-17T08:13:00.006-05:00

Since their recent successful bid for the Olympics, Brazilian officials have become concerned that they will face a real strain on their water resources with the influx of visitors expected during the Olympics. To help cope with this problem, they've turned to Israel.

Brazil is not a particularly water poor country, but nonetheless, it's officials have made a decision--reflective of great foresight--that the water cannot be squandered and that now is the time to work towards conserving it. Brazil has already begun innovative water saving activities, such as this television spot about how urinating in the shower can save water. Apparently, it's working!

Brazilian officials will be turning to Israel for the Water Technologies (WATEC) confernce to be held begining today (November 17) in Tel Aviv. The confernce is expected to attract experts from around the world to discuss tools for efficient use of water, new technologies to help with water conservation and sustainable development.

Israel has already been branded the "Silicon Valley" of water technology for its global leadership in this feild and WATEC is just an example of this. It's also an example of how countries with no obvious interests in common (Brazil and Israel) can be brought together to cooperate and to build bridges and relations by sharing ideas about that universally needed, precious resource, water.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in Yiddish!

2009-11-15T18:59:00.003-05:00

Boy did I get a kick out of this!

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was Translated into Yiddish! This should not be too shocking as it has been translated into over 360 languages, but Yiddish!?

A little information of the translation itself is here.

"Just Journalism" Exploring International Law in the Media

2009-11-15T13:45:00.003-05:00

I've come across an interesting organization (with a punny name) called Just Journalism. The UK based organization states as its mission that:

"Just Journalism is an independent research organisation focused on how Israel
and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media. We produce analysis of
print, broadcast and online media and regularly publish research on trends in
the media’s coverage."

What I find particularly interesting about Just Journalism is that they have what appears to be a somewhat unique focus on how public international law is reported in the media. Public International Law, like any area of law, can be incredibly nuanced and complex and is difficult to fully express in a short news report or article. Law is also rarely black and white, and lawyers are often mocked for regularly answering questions with: "well that depends..." Just Journalism has concerned itself with how these difficult issues are dealt with in the media.

There was a recent Just Journalism "round table" on international law as reported in the media. The round table featured journalism experts as well as at least two experts on international law, Professor Robert McCorquodale and Dr Ralph Wilde (bio at the bottom of the page.)

The round table found, in a nutshell, that international law is a highly politicized subject, that its concepts have precise meanings and the application of international law concepts to a given situation can be legitimately, hotly contested. They also point out that given the subtle, but important, nuances that may exist journalists are not necessarily qualified to identify the areas that may be contentious when interviewing one expert or another.

As a useful example of how international law is sometimes used--if not by journalists than by politically oriented groups--to advance political positions, consider this article by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting--also quite punny!) FAIR is a US

"...media watch organization offering constructive criticism in an effort to
correct media imbalance. We advocate for media access on behalf of those
constituencies in our society that do not have the wealth to purchase their own
TV stations or daily newspapers. We scrutinize media practices that slight
public interest, peace and minority viewpoints."

In other words, it's a group advocating against centralized control of new media and encouraging media to be more aggressive and critical of the powers that be.

The FAIR article linked to above discusses reporting on international law in the US in the wake of the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza. It laments that more mention of international law was not made and that Israel was not more forcefully criticized for its violations of this law. Indeed, it criticizes the New York Times for saying that “In the debate over civilian casualties, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes a military target.” This being of course a reflection of the difficulty of answering the question when does a target become military. Is a soldier off duty a military target? Is a member of a terrorist group not in uniform planning an attack a target, on the way to an attack, attempting to attack? The lines are unclear and it would seem the New York Times was right to note this uncertainty. Nonetheless, groups like the "Electronic Intifada" have picked up and republished reports like this one from FAIR in furtherance of what is their, distinctly political agenda. They are asking that media make more pronouncements on international law precisely because it is useful to have mainstream sources making unequivocal legal claims.

One of the round tables key outcomes is that "Journalists must strike a balance between providing detail on the complex legal concepts they refer to, and ensuring their reports remain accessible to their audiences. There is a lack of consensus on the right way to strike this balance at present and this needs further discussion." Or in other words, law is complicated, is hard to communicate in the space often available to journalists and there are no simple solutions to rectify this problem.

Certainly, the laws that apply in a courtroom, do not apply to public opinion. In a court if a witness, even an expert witness, says something, the judge need not accept the statement as true and more often than not, the opposite party will bring in their own witnesses and experts to contradict the claims. In journalism, an interview with a single law professor may suffice for the journalist or the audience to feel convinced that they are hearing the authoritative legal position. It may not be sufficient, but it would be a positive step in the right direction for journalists to remember that pronouncements on the law can nearly always be contradicted. It could also be useful for them to acknowledge this somehow in their reporting. For example, if interviewing a law professor adding the caveat, to be perfectly clear, that this opinion is only that of this professor and there may be other, valid legal opinions. Or, perhaps in an interview asking the interviewee to honestly consider if there would be other international law experts who may disagree with him or her could rectify this imbalance.

In all cases, Just Journalism raises interesting points about the confluence of law, the media and politics and their work is worth watching.

We Will Remember Them...

2009-11-12T20:32:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I attended the Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa. It was the first time I was able to make it to that ceremony and was glad that I did.

The weather was perfect, unseasonably warm and not a cloud in the sky. The ceremony itself was impressive, involving members of all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, dignitaries including the Governor General, the Prime Minister and the Prince of Wales, Charles, who was on a Canadian tour and of course, veterans.

There are a few points I wanted to make after having seen the ceremony which was complete with a military band, pipers, buglers a 21 gun salute with Howitzers and a flypast by 4 CF-18s.

First, it’s hard not to notice the soldiers in the honour guard at the memorial. In particular, their age: they’re all so young. Really young! It’s hard not to consider, as they go marching by, that these are the people who have volunteered to go though harsh training, and accept the most dangerous jobs Canadians could have for pay that is certainly not extraordinary. It’s these young people that we all rely on because they will stand up for us when push comes to shove.

Second, the crowds. At the event, I couldn’t tell how many people were there, but there were thousands. I was near (but not at) the front of the crowd and we were pretty well packed in. After the ceremony, people were given the opportunity to place their poppies on the tomb of the unknown soldier, the crowd that lined up to do so was so thick that I decided to pass up on that opportunity. People were also unusually polite, respectful and quiet. I couldn’t help but notice that even after the moment of silence, even when there was nothing to really see or listen too, the crowd was so still. There were also no cases that I saw of people jostling for a position, arguing, or anything of the kind. In fact, people were talking to strangers, asking if they had veterans in their families, where did they serve, what they did and thanking one another for the service of their relatives.

The crowd was also, naturally, very appreciative of the veterans, but to a point I didn’t expect. As the veterans marched passed, the crowed broke into applause. This appreciation, however, was not reserved just for the parade. Some veterans arrived late and walked to the ceremony site by themselves or were pushed in wheelchairs. The crowed broke into separate rounds of applause for each and every veteran that passed, no matter what the circumstances.

Third, the flyby and the 21 gun salute. I’ve been to air shows before and have seen fighter planes pass by, even at low levels, but it’s impressive every time. The CF-18s came in low, in a tight formation and while they may not have screamed passed, they were yelling very loudly. The earth shook and the planes were gone before the sound of their jets reached the people below. That sound followed like a wave passing over the crowed. It’s hard not to be awed by such power.

The Howitzers made an impression too. I think it was the first time I had ever been physically present when such a large weapon was fired. The first shot startled me. The earth shook and I felt the sound echo in my chest. A friend of mine who I spoke to afterwards—who has been around artillery far more than I have—dismissed the salute as somewhat tame. But for me, it was shocking. The sound; the trembling of the earth; the plumes of smoke; and all this after firing shells that weren’t even live ammunition, it made an impression.

I take from both the artillery and the planes that the power we have created for ourselves, the awesomeness of the force we can bring to bear is overwhelming. The sights sounds and smells of an actual war, with its cannons, and planes and guns must be a terrible, terrifying, chaotic clamour and into this, we send those young people.

Finally, there’s the veterans. They were young once too, just like the young soldiers in the parade and they had all seen the worst of war. It just drives home the point of what they must have really gone through and what they have given so that we can live in a free country, where I can write this blog and say whatever I wish, where I can vote, earn a living, and pursue anything I choose. It’s hard to know how to properly express gratitude to these mostly—there were some young Afghanistan war vets there—old people, some of whom marched in the parade with canes. It seems that applauding them as they walked by is so insignificant. I think that perhaps the best way to appreciate their sacrifices to be sure to know about them, read about them, speak to the veterans and be able to pass their stories on.

Jordanian-Israeli Earthquake Drill

2009-11-10T18:15:00.004-05:00

Though there is precious little information about it available online, Israel and Jordan have just completed a joint operation simulating a response to an earthquake. The drill took place on a kibbutz within Israel.

Jordanian news did not report the story at all (at least not in English) while Syrian media did report on the exercise and framed it as a situation where "the Zionist Entity" would need help from Jordan. Syrian media is also the only outlet that noted that this type of drill is an annual occurrence.

Most Israeli media that reported on this story did so only in sketchy detail and pointed out that the event took place in the shadow of tension between Israel and Jordan over Jerusalem and that the event was only announced after the fact to avoid domestic pressure on the Jordanian government to cancel.

The event must be taken as good news. Cooperation between two countries with a somewhat cold peace cannot be considered anything but a positive step. The deepening of relationships, forging of institutional and personal ties and an increased compatibility and ability to function together in mutual interest is valuable to deepen ties between countries, especially Israel and Jordan.

The secrecy of this drill, however, underscores how this peace is not grassroots but rather political only. It underlines the need for further cooperation in this vein and in others: cultural, educational and the like. Indeed, after the fact, one should hope that this drill and its success and benefits be promulgated widely in Jordan and the Arab world. The breaking of the taboo of dealing with Israel and the opening up of a willingness to try developing ties with Israel and to reap the benefits of such ties could be a key component in creating a wider regional peace.

One also needs to wonder how much cooperation of this type takes place without any publicity. Certainly there is important Israeli-Egyptian cooperation, notably in agriculture, but unfortunately, its benefits are not promoted, as they should be.

Diplomat Asks "Did We Capture Them?" After Learning Israel Supporters Spoke to Media at UN

2009-11-09T00:56:00.004-05:00

After the recent UN General Assembly (UNGA) vote which accepted and called for the implementation of the recommendations of the Goldstone Report a lone voice tried to address the media in support of the countries that opposed the resolution (here and here).

Anne Bayefsky, a law professor at York University in Toronto stepped to the microphone after a media scrum and made the point that the resolution does not condemn Hamas, that barely more than half of the UNGA voted for the resolution and that it's hard to imagine that any real democracy expects Hamas to investigate itself and that such an expectation discredits the UN. The actual statement is here.

After making her statement, however, Professor Bayefsky who was speaking on behalf of an NGO the "Touro College Institute for Human Rights" was surrounded by security guards, taken to the UN security department where she was stripped of her ID and then escorted off UN property. Professor Bayefsky is adamant that she would not have been escorted away had she been speaking in support of the UN resolution. When a journalist mentioned to the Palestinian Representative that a "pro-Israel non-governmental organization" had spoken, the diplomat asked the journalist "did we capture them?"

The Lybian delegate who had also spoken to the media commented that Professor Bayefsky had no right to be speaking at all and so she should have been removed from the microphone where she had no right to be. This is because NGOs are not allowed to speak at UN media scrums like the one in question. The same journalist who mentioned the incident to the Palestinian diplomat did some digging and found several cases where NGOs had spoken to media at UN scrums. He also claims that despite requests, he has not been shown any policy explaining who may or may not speak to the media at the UN.

The whole incident, especially the "did we capture them" line is telling of something other than a desire for justice amongst those who support Goldstone's report. It seems that it's more about an opportunity to find Israel guilty and to pass judgement without considering that there may be two sides to the coin. It is a case of a political tarring and feathering rather than a legitimate juridical process which is nonetheless wrapped in the cloak of a juridical process.

Take for example the UN press release which states that the report "...found that Israeli forces and Palestinian militants had committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law..." Meanwhile, Goldstone himself states that "Ours wasn’t an investigation, it was a fact-finding mission...We made that clear...We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” In other words, the nuance of what Goldstone himself was trying to say and the point he was trying to make, that his report proves nothing but that an investigation is warranted, is lost on the UN itself which treats Goldstone's "findings" as conclusive, though he himself says they are not.

Vindication (for me): Columbus May Have Been Jewish and the First Jew in New France

2009-11-06T01:02:00.005-05:00

In elementary school, upon realizing that Columbus reached the Americas in the same year as the Spanish Inquisition, I proposed to my teacher that perhaps Columbus and his crew were Jews, for if the State and the Church believed the earth to be flat, then surely it would be no loss for the Inquisition to have Jews fall off the edge of the earth, they would not allow Christians to take such risks. I was laughed at for that question. Hard.

Apparently, however, I may now be vindicated!

Estelle Irizarry, a linguist at Georgetown University has published a book which argues that not only was Columbus likely Catalan (not Italian) but he was probably also a Jew. This, she argues, is due to similarities in Colombus' writings with Ladino, a language spoken by the Jews of Spain.

It's not the first time Professor Irizarry has proposed that Columbus was Jewish, but the evidence does seem somewhat dubious: a comment made without the benefit of reading the book. Still, others point out that both the financier of his voyage and his interpreter were both Jews (and were baptized at a later date.) Other arguments, such as Colombus' use of Hebrew letters and refusal to baptize slaves are refuted with relative ease.

Still though, the story is interesting and dramatic, but, perhaps not as dramatic as the story of Esther Brandeau, a name probably unfamiliar to most Canadians. In September, 1738, Esther became the first Jew to arrive in New France, and possibly in any part of what is today Canada.

To make the voyage, alone and at a time when non-Catholics were not welcome in the French colony, Esther actually disguised herself as a man, and got away with it for a while, until she was discovered. When attempts to convert her failed, apparently the King himself took an interest in having her removed from the colony and returned to France.

There it is, two stories of (potential) Jewish History in the New World!

Israel's Constitutional Discussions: Towards an Israeli Version of the Canadian "Notwithstanding Clause"

2009-11-05T01:42:00.005-05:00

Canada's constitution contains a section known as the "notwithstanding clause:" section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It reads as follows:

"33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4)."

In a nutshell, what this means is that the federal government or a provincial legislature can choose to ignore, or overrule the decision of a court if that court declares that a certain piece of legislation is contrary to the constitution and should be "struck down." Basically, it gives elected officials a way to go ahead with a policy decision even if unelected judges decide that this policy violates fundamental, constitutional rights. It is a type of legislation that may be unique anywhere in the world.

The notwithstanding clause has been used only rarely, and in one of the most (in)famous uses, was when the government of Quebec decided to invoke section 33 so as not to have to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that declared Quebec's Language laws (laws that give French predominance over any other language) were unconstitutional. This use is not the only controversy that surrounds section 33, it is only likely the most visible one.

It seems, however, that Canada may not be alone in having this type of legislation for much longer. Israel is apparently considering something similar.

Israel does not have a written Constitution like Canada does, but rather has a series of "basic laws." Nonetheless, there is an effort afoot to develop a constitution for Israel and this interesting website has a lot of very interesting information on the subject. Indeed, there is even a page dedicated to constitutional discussions between Israeli officials and Canadian ones. This effort, however, is a slow one and faces many political obstacles such that the current Israeli minister of justice, Neeman, commented that he thinks the only way to introduce such a constitution will be gradually.

This leads to Neeman's stated intention to introduce an Israeli notwithstanding clause. The purpose of this proposed bill would be to allow the Supreme court to nullify a law it deems unconstitutional (called "judicial review") and to then give the Israeli parliament the power to ignore the Supreme Court's decision so long as 70 members (out of 120 in the Israeli Parliament) agreed.

In other words, if the Israeli parliament were to ignore a supreme court decision, nearly 60% of its members would have to support such an action. Theoretically, this would make it very difficult for the Knesset to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Compare this to Canada where a simple majority is needed to apply section 33. This means any Legislature where there is a Parliamentary majority could overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. The reason it does not happen more often is because invoking section 33 is an acknowledgement that basic rights are being violated and so only the most extreme policy or political imperatives justify such an action.

The Israeli situation is very different than the Canadian one. Israel is a country at war, that faces threats both internal and external and has a very fractious political landscape. The Israeli government is also almost always guaranteed to be a minority or a coalition government which gives smaller parties and special interests within the country a great deal of power. The Israeli Supreme Court now stands as one of the most respected in the world for the challenging and wide ranging legal questions it is charged with resolving--and does resolve well--often on very short notice. This bill proposes taking power from this court and placed in the hands of Parliamentarians. These Parliamentarians, however, could find themselves in a position where they must cave to the interests of small parties in order to preserve their political lives, or to pander to a constituency that reacts not based on a desire to adhere to the law but rather to meet a specific policy objective. There should be great concern that the Israeli "notwithstanding clause" could see significant abuse.

If Israel were to take such a gamble on a law that could shift power from well trained, expert jurists and place it into the hands of Parliamentarians whose interests are not always 'justice' then at the very least, raise the number of Parliamentarians needed to invoke the law from 70 to something closer to 85 (just over 70% of a 120 seat house). Such an option should be difficult for parliamentarians to use and should underscore the seriousness of such a decision.

Middle Eastern Rains are Good, but Not Enough

2009-11-04T01:44:00.004-05:00

The stormy (Middle Eastern style) winter weather that hit Israel and the region seem to have made a massive difference in a region so stricken with drought.

It's difficult for most Canadians to imagine the concept of a drought and a need to adopt drastic water-saving measures, but as this article from Jordan illustrates well, living in that part of the world, rain truly is a blessing.

It also has its costs, as both the article from Jordan and this story about two Israeli construction workers killed in a mudslide caused by the rains illustrates.

Israeli media seems to disagree on exactly how beneficial the rainfall was. YNet cites a 4 centimeter increase in the levels of the Kineret (Sea of Galilee) as of November 3, whereas Ha'Aretz puts the water level at about an 8.5 centimeter increase.

The Israeli Water authority (in Hebrew, but should be clear enough for anyone to understand) shows on it's tracking of the Kineret's levels, that the Kinnert rose 3 centimeters on the 3rd of November and prior to that had risen 4 centimeters over the course of the weekend. This would make YNet more accurate considering the time of publication and would make Ha'Aretz closer to accurate (though still a bit off) at the time of this writing.

What's particularly fascinating, for those interested in water issues, is the quote in the YNet article that reads: "Most of the rivers in northern Israel did not see substantial water flow. The first storms of the season prepare the soil, but the prolong aridity has not allowed the rain to seep through to groundwater yet" and "this kind of rainfall is very important. The soil is ready for the next rain and future watercourse and floods will surly seep into groundwater."

In other words, it appears that the environmental consequences of drought were so severe that the soil was not even able to absorb the water. It appears that even though the rain was beneficial and "important" much of it that may otherwise have recharged groundwater sources was instead needed to prepare the soil for the rains that Ha'Aretz's weather forecast seems to indicate, may not happen for a while.

Go Buy a Poppy!

2009-11-04T00:59:00.005-05:00

The Royal Canadian Legion has begun their poppy campaign.

The Legion sells poppies every year (for whatever price one is willing to pay) to both remember our veterans prior to Remembrance Day on November 11 and to raise money for veterans in the communities where the poppies are sold.

For the Canadians who fought in the trenches, for those that defeated Nazism, for those that fought in Korea, against Saddam Hussein, who put on the blue beret of a peacekeeper, who know fight on our behalf in Afghanistan and who volunteer to make scarifies in some of the most dangerous jobs a Canadian can have: buying a poppy is the least we can do.

GO GET ONE!

British MP in Ottawa to Discuss Antisemetism and the Cesspool of the Internet

2009-11-03T00:07:00.004-05:00

A few days ago, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) published a study showing that antisemitism in the US was at an all time low. Today, however, a British MP Denis MacShane, who is visiting Canada, published articles in the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post about what he sees as signs of a sharp increase in antisemitism around the world. This story was taken up and reported by the CBC who noted that MacShane is in Canada to provide testimony to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA).

The sharp contrast between the arguments of Mr. MacShane and the ADL are not necessarily contradictory. For example, the ADL survey may have been faulty, for any number of reasons. Mr. MacShane may have overstated the case (he is apparently the author of a recently published book on the subject) or he may be shining too powerful a magnifying glass on a small number of unrepresentative cases. There could also be a real divide between attitudes in the US and elsewhere.

The CPCCA, before which MacShane appeared on November 2, 2009 is not actually a government committee. Instead it is merely a coalition of Canadian MPs from all parties who meet to discuss antisemitism in Canada and how to confront it.

Having lived my whole life in Canada, and being very proud of where I'm from, I'm not sure I have ever encountered an act of antisemitism aimed directly at me. Of course, I have seen and heard of antisemitic incidents, but I, as an individual, was never the intended target, it was aimed more generally at the group to which I belonged. That being said, I always considered antisemitism to be a fringe position, held by a tiny minority of people. This may well be exactly the case. However, recognizing that they are not in any way a representative sample, when I read some of the comments of readers, and ostensibly ordinary Canadians on the Ottawa Citizen website or the CBC I shudder.

The Ottawa Citizen article written by MacShane lists a number of incidents he sees as a rise in antisemitism and opens with a reminder of a recent desecration of a Jewish cemetery in Ottawa, taking this incident as a signal of a resurgence in antisemitism. Some of the pearls of wisdom written on the site by readers are (all comments copied and pasted, no edits, no spell-check):

"We need to investigate why there have been many instances where Jews have been caught spraying hateful symbols on dormitories, synagogs and cemetaries."

"Why is there so much focus on the Jews? They comprise of about 4% or less of the world's population and yet they get a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Is this because they own almost all of the main media outlets and therefore control what is being said? (Thought control) This is very dangerous and I am happy that people are waking up."

"And the guy from Hungary was right about the global capital being Jewish capital, thats not anti-anything, the Elite Jews own just about everything there is to be owned... Maybe they are trying to destroy Hungary, have you ever been there?"

As well as a number of other comments saying, in a nutshell, it's not nice to vandalize a cemetery, but look at what Israel's doing in Gaza. As though the actions of Israel would in any way justify the defacing of an Ottawa cemetery with swastikas.

Over at the CBC, which merely reported on Mr. MacShanes Citizen article, neither Israel, nor Zionism nor anything in the middle east is mentioned even once. Nonetheless, comments immediately lash out at Israel. Some of the gems from the much longer thread of comments at the CBC:

"Tsk tsk tsk!! Some politicians are really taking us for idiots. “The beast of Anti-Semitism is on the rise”, they say, but yet, they don’t offer ANY explanations. Maybe it’s because they don’t want to face the truth!!! Since talking about illegal Israeli Occupation is no longer forbidden, in the Media world, and since more and more ppl get their info on the internet, I would say with certainty that there’s a direct correlation between the rise of Anti-Semitism and the truth coming out, about Israel’s ILLIGAL activities! But, you go ahead, Mr. Politicians, try to delude us from the truth and see where it will get you…don’t under-estimate our intelligence….you’re the one who should wake up!!!!!"

"Rwanda, Zimbabwe, the Congo. Check out the numbers of people killed there? Don't they matter? No, because they are black and conveniently forgotten. The Jewish population, especially the Zionists, will be happy once again that their cause of the "great opressed" will be in the news again. How about other culture and genocides there. They should share the stage and this MP should talk about those also."

"Every time someone sais one peep about a jewish person it's ati-semitism. I think it's a load of crap. I despise the Nazis for what was done to 6 million Jews and countless others, but the fact that the holocaust happened does not give Jews the right to scream bloody murder every time someone shows disstain for there religion. I think every religion is retarted....in the eyes of some of these folks that makes me an anti-semetic nazis. Meanwhile who took over the fascist charge when germany was defeated??? The Jews and christians of Isreal and America!"

"Zionists love anti-semitism ( which is a misnomer. Arabs are semites.)"

And so on...

Many comments also deny that there is such a thing as antisemitism, pointing out that Arabs are Semites as well (true) but ignore the actual meaning of the word antisemitism in the English language: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."

What is so shocking is that so many of these comments will gloss over real hatred and real intimidation of their fellow citizens, who happen to be Jewish, by simply lashing out at a political entity or policies they don't like. The willingness to, and the ease with which so many comments on these two websites ignore this hate crime and excuse hatred of a minority group that includes their neighbours is truly appalling.

It is similarly appalling, that these two websites, which claim to have moderated comments, allow this type of drivel to be published. Freedom of expression is, of course, a central Canadian value and it should not be limited, nonetheless, do these media outlets have standards that they're willing to uphold? Just because someone writes a comment, does not mean that it's worthy of being published.

I will be very interested to read what the CPCCA recommends and I hope they will provide worthwhile recommendations. In the interim, I remain concerned about some of the rhetoric on these mainstream media sites and would encourage those concerned to write to these outlets asking them to explain their online comment "moderation" policy and procedures and to bring some of these hateful comments, which slip past the moderator, to their attention.

Water in the West Bank: Amnesty International's Report

2009-11-01T01:32:00.006-04:00

Amnesty International has published a report titled "Troubled Waters--Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water" which paints a picture of despair in the West Bank and Gaza strip and suggests that Israel is almost totally responsible. (Another news story about the report is here and there's a summary of some of its findings here.)

The report is based heavily on interviews with Palestinians living in the West Bank and documents that seem to be generally publicly available, such as World Bank reports and legislation.

Reading the report, one is left with the impression that Israel is deliberately denying water to Palestinians in the hopes that they will simply leave. Indeed it explicitly claims that this is an Israeli policy, but provides little to substantiate this claim. The report shows no indication of actually having attempted to speak to Israeli authorities with regards to the water situation in the West Bank with the exception of a case where a request was made to the Israel Water Authority and no response was received.

What struck me, personally, when reading the report was its use of emotive language and reference to issues which have no real bearing on the amount of water Palestinians have access to. For example, the report speaks of the illegality of Israeli settlements. This may be so, but the legality of settlements is not germane to how much water the settlements consume, nor the amount of water Palestinians should have. If the settlements were legal, the problematic disparity in access to water would be equally shocking.

A further example is that it also emotively criticizes the swimming pools in Israeli settlements contrasting these (undated) images with those of empty Palestinian reservoirs. All the while, AI ignores the reality of Palestinians themselves having swimming pools.

More substantively, however, the report errs, or makes dubious assumptions or arguments about the status of the waters available in the region. For example, the report claims at several points that water is a human right. To be fair, though water should probably be a basic, universal human right, today, under international law, it is not. See this article and read this report from the WHO which can, at best, only extrapolate that water is a human right based on other, adjacent rights.

Secondly, the report makes the questionable legal claim that the underground water source supplying the West bank, The "Mountain Aquifer" is subject to the same legal regime as those that apply to surface waters. This is a legal position that also does not exist in international law since no legal regime exists at all that would properly apply to aquifers like the Mountain Aquifer.

Another criticism of the report, this one leveled by the group NGO Monitor, makes the point that the AI report ignores the regional reality of drought and of the challenges relating to water for many countries in the region. The Israeli government did respond to the report forcefully suggesting it was foreclosed from making any representations to those investigating and that the facts presented by Amnesty International were simply false.

Indeed the Israeli government suggests that they exceed their agreed upon requirements to share water with the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo agreement and that Palestinians mistreat the water they have access to by not recycling sewage for irrigation, by not investing money provided to them for aquatic infrastructure and by refusing Israeli offers to construct desalinization facilities for "political" reasons. The Amnesty report did touch on PA failures, but suggested that the PA only failed because somehow, its hands were always tied by Israel.

The Israeli government also points to this report that it produced in March 2009 explaining how water was distributed in the West Bank.

Whatever the causes, it is clear that there is a regional drought and that is impacting all people in their region and that Palestinians may be suffering from the situation disproportionately to their Israeli and Jordanian neighbours. It may similarly be true that there are endemic problems of Israeli soldiers shooting at Palestinian water tanks out of pure boredom (the report makes this point without discussing the issue with any Israeli officials.) If true, such incidents reflect a breach of discipline and need to be corrected without delay. The suggestion, however, that there is a policy of enforced inequality or a desire to force Palestinians out by depriving them of water is not demonstrated by the AI report and is forcefully refuted by Israeli sources.

Amnesty would have done well to have consulted Israeli officials on this matter before writing their report. As Israel did with Jordan when their peace treaty was signed, water sharing was made a major issue. To date, the water clause of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty functions well and there is close cooperation between the two countries. AI's report instead reads as though the author was looking for any opportunity to criticize Israel and as such will probably be dismissed as biased and ignored by those who may be in a position to help rectify some of the problems it identifies: Israelis.

When Asking For Water, Careful What You Wish For

2009-10-31T04:07:00.005-04:00

The ongoing drought in Israel, and indeed in the wider region, has been of great concern. Water levels in Israels main natural reservoir, the Sea of Galilee (the Kinneret) are well below a "comfortable" level and the Israeli government was considering drastic measures.

One of these drastic measures is even proving to be a major political lightning rod. It's a new "drought tax" on water which is intended to both curb water use and waste and to levy funds to help construct desalinization facilities.

Very recently, Israel was his with major rain storms. Rain in the Middle East, or at least in Israel, is big news, especially in a drought. While the rain did raise the water level in the Kinneret a paltry couple of centimeters (but still a significant amount given the recent water levels) it also brought with it considerable hardship. Pictures of some of the flooding the storms caused is quite remarkable while in even more tragic circumstances a tourist in Israel was killed as a result of the storms.

The rain also required memorial services for the cowardly assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin to be postponed.

Good News From Jenin

2009-10-27T23:26:00.003-04:00

I thought it was important to share this "good news" story from the Gilboa Regional Council in Israel and the Govenorate of Jenin.

The two governments are cooperating with one another to create economic opportunities that will not only be mutually beneficial but that will create an interdependence and opportunity for contact between ordinary Israelis and ordinary Palestinians.

This article deals mostly with a tourism project in Jenin, formerly a name associated with Palestinian suicide bombing (not the site of bombing, but the source of it.) The article describes a tourist visit to the town and makes it sound quite lovely and a great place to visit. Nonetheless, it was clear, Israeli settlers were not welcome.

It also does not really explain how this project benefits the Israeli side, but does touch on other projects, such as a joint industrial zone (Palestinian production Israeli export) and a cultural facility where Palestinians can learn Hebrew and Israelis can learn Arabic.

The point is, however, that this project stands as an example of what can be accomplished when two partners want to work with one another and when a decision is made to pursue cooperation and prosperity. The article is an interesting read and is exactly the kind of story I wanted to talk about when I started this blog.

Canada's Top Soldier in Israel

2009-10-25T03:02:00.003-04:00

Canada's top soldier, General Walter J. Natynczyk paid a three day visit to Israel this past week.

The official Canadian Forces news release on the trip makes mention of the General's visits to Canadians serving in the middle east, as well as meetings with top Israeli military and defense officials to foster military relationships and the challenges faced in the region.

Israeli news, however, has given the visit somewhat more coverage, for example it notes the General's visit to Yad Vashem*, the various military sites he visited in Israel and has focused on a few comments the General made regarding the Goldstone report and Israel's war against Hamas.

Specifically, the General acknowledges that he still needs to read the full Goldstone report, but implies that he has had a detailed briefing on the situation and states that he now has an understanding of "...what the Israeli forces have had to counter for quite some time..." The General said that he recognizes a responsibility to protect oneself even if attacked from civilian locations and muses that "I’m not sure if the Israeli standpoint is that much different than the Canadian standpoint, having had the experience in Afghanistan."

Israeli media seem to be interpreting this as a validation of the critique of the Goldstone report which argues that it will apply to all unconventional warfare of the future where the enemy is difficult to distinguish from civilians.

In reality, the General seems to be saying not much more than that he has not yet read the report and so is not prepared to endorse it or attack it. What is interesting, however, is what seems to be some kind of an acknowledgement that the tactics used by the IDF are likely quite similar to what Canadian and other NATO militaries use.

*The first song played in the video on this link is a Hebrew song called "Tomorrow" or "Machar." It sounds strange to hear it performed so martially, but its words and message are really quite beautiful.

Ottawa Cemetary Vanadalized

2009-10-23T18:40:00.005-04:00

A Jewish cemetery in Ottawa was desecrated by vandals who covered it in antisemitic graffiti with slogans and swastikas.

The Jewish community of Ottawa is naturally disturbed by this affront to their dignity and the sanctity of their dead. Fortunately, however, the police have immediately labelled this act a hate crime and are investigating.

A Jewish community spokesperson said that community ostracism of those responsible is the best deterrent against such attacks. Perhaps this is true, but so are tough laws that severely punish intolerance and education programs and community outreach that combat intolerance and hate.

Thoughts on a Palestinian Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State

2009-10-22T23:02:00.010-04:00

Two prominent peace activists, a Palestinian Aziz Abu Sarah and an Israeli Roi Ben-Yehuda had a public, interesting, though short discussion on whether or not Palestinians should recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Roi argued, as may be expected, that the Palestinians should recognize the Jewish character of Israel so as to allay the Israeli fear that Palestinians wish to exercise their right of return to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. He recognizes that this would not be easy for Palestinians and suggests that Palestinians, if they don't like the idea of a Jewish Israel, should propose an alternative.

The thrust of Aziz's argument is that it's important for there to be mutual recognition of the "other's" narrative and that Israel needs to take responsibility for Palestinian suffering. These are words that he lives by, as per this heartfelt piece he wrote. He also suggested that Palestinians should not be asked to make this recognition before they have a state, nor should they be asked to do something neither Egypt nor Jordan were when they made peace with Israel.

Certainly the discussion was thought provoking, so I decided to draft a short statement of recognition of Israel that the PA could use. Obviously, this is nothing more than the off-the-cuff musings of a guy on his couch, but maybe it's an interesting starting point:

"The Palestinian Authority recognizes an ancient and continuous Jewish connection to the land of Israel. Similarly, the PA recognizes a long and continuous Arab connection to the land and that the land is sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims. The land contains sites central to the culture of these people who continue to inhabit it and who look to it as a source of inspiration from afar. It also contains sites sacred to the world's three Abrahamic, monotheistic religions. The sate of Israel, which legitimately governs its territory as defined by the United Nations, governs people of all these backgrounds and of all these faiths. It also has sovereignty over sites which are culturally, historically and or religiously significant to millions of people in the middle east and around the world.

Israel must guarantee the rights of all non-Jewish minorities in its territory. Israel must ensure that all real or technical barriers to full equality between all its citizens must be removed and eliminated. Israel must recognize that its minorities are its full citizens and have the right to permanently remain in Israel.

Israel must also guarantee that the aforementioned religious, cultural and historic sites in its territory, significant to so many be protected, preserved and accessible to all who wish to visit them.

Since 1948, when Israel established its Independence, the Palestinians have suffered. Palestinians have been hoping for a state and have lived through much adversity and national trauma. Israel must recognize this suffering and acknowledge its role in it.

If Israel can recognize the suffering of the Palestinians, its role in it and the legitimacy of the Palestinian national aspirations, if Israel will guarantee the safety and equality of its minorities and protect the treasures of humankind within its borders, if Israel can recognize that the Palestinians have the same hopes and aspirations for themselves and Israel does for itself, then the Palestinian People can recognize that the state of Israel in the fulfillment of the Jewish national aspiration to a homeland of their own."

"De-Sanctification" of the Holocaust

2009-10-22T21:09:00.006-04:00

This article hits the nail on the head when it speaks of how the term "Holocaust" is thrown around so liberally that it cheapens or "de-Sanctifies" (an appropriately eloquent term) the industrialized, institutionalized genocide perpetrated by the Germans and their willing partners in World War Two.

The article is correct to point out how even though many have real concerns with abortions, or animal welfare, or health care these are in no way comparable to the suffering of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witness, the infirm or any of the other countless millions of undesirables the Nazis tried to wipe out.

The Holocaust was such evil that it has no parallel in human history, and if it did, it would certainly not be abortion, it would more likely be another, actual genocide. Even then, however, no other genocide has seen the level of institutionalization, industrialization or allocation of resources that the Holocaust did.

To compare something to the Holocaust (or for that matter, to Nazis, or to Hitler, etc.) is to attempt to link the target of ones argument to the worst evil in history. In truth, however, such a comparison reflects an intellectual void that either misunderstands the Holocaust, the issue one is trying to link to the Holocaust, or both.

There is evil in the world, and cruelty, and suffering but as much as we may abhor certain aspects of the world we live in, none of it has yet matched the evil of the Holocaust and the Nazis. To suggest otherwise is, as this article points out, a cheapening of the suffering of victims of the Nazis and of those who survived.

The only failure of the article is that is misses this and this, both of which deserve mention.

Drastic Measures to Resolve a Drought

2009-10-21T01:09:00.006-04:00

The extreme water shortage in Israel and dire predictions for the future of the country's water resources bring the recent chilling of the relationship between Israel and Turkey into sharper focus.

Water reservoir supplies in Israel are now so low, that experts are saying weather will only determine the severity of the water crisis. If this winter is better than the last, arid one, than the situation will remain critical, but potentially manageable. If this winter is the same or worse than last year's than drastic measures including water imports and expensive portable desalinization machines will be needed.

One of the drastic solutions proposed, and one that underscores the importance of good relations between Israel and Turkey is the possibility of bulk water transfers from Turkey to Israel. The idea is not new but previous governments never went through with it because other methods of accessing more freshwater (like desalination) were found to be less expensive. The difference is that this time, the situation may be grave enough as to merit this costly step.

Water transfers are problematic for so many reasons. They can cause real damage to the ecosystem they are taken from, they are sometimes problematic to transport and distribute, there is the risk that water becomes treated as a commodity, which could have broader impacts at international law and they risk instilling a false sense of security in the importer which may have the consequence of reducing or relaxing conservation efforts.

In the Israeli case, certainly in an emergency where the water levels are near the point of an environmental, economic or human disaster something would have to be done to prevent a crisis and perhaps in this case, a bulk water import would be merited. What should really be the outcome of this is a deep introspection and domestic discussion in Israel of how to build a country in a desert. The Israeli dream has always been making the desert bloom and the idea of encouraging Jews to move to Israel to "return home" encourages population growth in places where there should perhaps be little or no population at all. Israel needs to re-examine the labour Zionist dream of working the land in the form of cultivation and whether more of the population should somehow be shifted or encouraged to shift into other sectors that are less water intensive.

The Israeli Water Authority is satisfied with the results of their various water conservation efforts which reduced consumption to 89 cubic meters of water consumed per Israeli per year (see this slightly out of date chart for an idea of how that compares to other developed countries) but obviously, these efforts were not enough.

Something will need to change in the way Israel uses and conserves water, or scenes likes this one, a water tanker off-loading in the port of Barcelona, will become common scenes in Israel and the ecological consequences and dependency on imports will have wide ranging impacts.

Green Power in the West Bank

2009-10-18T03:05:00.002-04:00

YNet reports that a group of Israelis from Comet-ME has set up a completley sustainable power source for the West Bank village of Susya which had, until recently, no electricity at all, other than a diesel generator.

This story of Israelis helping a severly underserviced West Bank village is significant on many levels. First, the village was not connected to any power grid, even though wires serving settlements passed right over them. This is a clear representation of the disparity between Palestinians and the settlements in the West Bank. While the West Bank economy is, in general, growing, there are still villages that are forgotten. A situation that must change.

Secondly, this effort in itself is a step towards improving the West Bank economy. As the article itself indicates, this will do a great deal for the ability of this village to generate wealth for themselves. The better things are for the people of this village, the less likley it will be to generate hate, resentment and extremism.

Finally, this is a story of ordinary Israelis meeting ordinary Palestinians and offering a helping hand. It is personal connections like these, and grass roots connections that will set the foundations for real, lasting peace.

Turkey's Relations With Israel

2009-10-14T02:08:00.006-04:00

There has been a noticeable cooling in what were normally mutually beneficial relations between Turkey and Israel in recent months mostly as a result of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's harsh criticism of Israels war against Hamas in early 2009.

This time, the cooling of relations has manifested itself in Turkey's rescheduling of NATO military maneuvers so that Israel would not be able to participate. To add insult to Israel's injury at being left out of these maneuvers, Turkey agreed to hold further aerial (ground maneuvers had already taken place) exercises with Syria, a state officially at war with Israel.

While the US "gently" criticized Turkey for the move suggesting that it's never appropriate for any country to be excluded from an event like the NATO maneuvers at the last minute. Turkish officials have apparently sent messages to Israel suggesting that despite the Turkish Prime Minister's harsh rhetoric, Israel should just let things blow over. Israel seems slightly more concerned though and seems to want to nip these tensions in the bud. This may be inferred from statements that Israel will not enter a war of words with Turkey through the media suggesting that any talks should be done directly between the states. Indeed, some Israeli officials have explicitly expressed their concern that ties between Israel and Turkey may have been seriously damaged because of the war against Hamas.

Turkey's increasing distance from Israel ought to be of real concern to Israel. Much of it has to do with domestic Turkish issues, a leader more interested in ties with the Muslim world than with the West, a government more interested in siding with Hamas than with the EU--which it nonetheless wants to join. To Israel, this may make Ankara appear to be an unreliable partner, but in fact, it probably places Turkey in a position to be an important catalyst for peace and as a power able to exert real pressure on both Israel and Hamas.

To Hamas, Turkey is one of the few states openly supporting Gaza and vocally criticizing Israel. This makes Turkey, in many ways a friend of Hamas and a country they may be uninclined to alienate, especially given Turkey's good relations with the west, as opposed to other Hamas supporters like Syria and Iran which are not in the good books of powers like the EU and US.

To Israel, however, Turkey in important on many levels. First, there is the intangible benefit to Israel of having beneficial relations with a Muslim country in the region. Though Turkey is not an Arab country, as Muslims having relations with Israel, they sent a message that relations with Israel were beneficial and possible for other Muslim countries.

On a more tangible level Turkey was an important client of the Israeli arms industry which is now reportedly suffering as a result of the new Turkish attitude. Similarly, Turkey was to be a potential solution to Israel's water shortfalls. These are real benefits to Israel that are now being lost and it's hard to know exactly what Israel would do to reverse its losses.

Israel can hit back at Turkey. They can point out Turkey's treatment of its Kurdish population, or officially recognize the Armenian genocide (which they should do, on principle) but both of these are unlikely as they would further isolate a country that Israel needs good relations with.

The US may be Israel's closest ally and the one least likely to mount serious pressure on the Israeli government but Turkey can mount pressure because it is important to Israel, but its ties are less secure. Turkey can be an important player in making peace in the middle east. Hopefully, they recognize this power and will wield it wisely.

Lawfare in Quebec

2009-10-11T02:41:00.009-04:00

In September, a judge of the Quebec Superior Court dismissed a motion by a Palestinian village Bil'in to find that two Quebec companies: Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount International Inc. had acted illegally and in violation of Quebec and international law for having built condominiums in a settlement in the West Bank and therefore for having been agents of the Israeli government. An article written about the case before it went to trial is here.

The case (Bil'In (Village Council) c. Ahmed Issa Yassin, 2009 QCCS 4151) is based on the idea that international law prohibits settlements because of the prohibition of transferring civilians into occupied territory. Therefore, Israel should be considered in violation of International law and the commission of a war crime and that the defendants (the companies) should be considered as agents of the Israeli government for having built settlements on their behalf.

The Quebec Superior Court Judge the Honorable Louis-Paul Cullen examines the Plaintiff's claims that the Israeli High Court of Justice which had heard similar claims from the same Plaintiffs had not fully resolved the matter, the Quebec court agreed.

The Defendants argued that the object of the Plaintiff's case was Res Judicata, something that has already been the subject of a judgement, because the same parties had been impleaded by the Israeli courts. In response to the Plaintiff's counter argument that the parties in the Israeli court's decision were not the same as those impleaded in the Quebec Superior Court, the judge referred to this claim as "disingenuous."

The judge also questioned the jurisdiction of the Quebec Superior Court over the matter and applied the criteria for jurisdiction which includes and examination of whether it would be better for another court in another jurisdiction to examine the case. The judge also pointed out that the Plaintiffs did not challenge the competency or authority of the Israeli courts and pointed out that they implicitly recognized its jurisdiction and reliability by applying to it in the first place. The Quebec court also wrote at para 325 that "having closely examined all of the HCJ judgements filed in the record, this Court is convinced that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically would not perceive the situation otherwise." In other words, Israeli courts are fair and impartial in their judgements.

The Quebec Superior Court concluded that the case brought by the Plaintiffs, which in part demanded the removal of the construction of the Defendants, was a violation of principles of natural justice as it did not implead the people actually living in the homes constructed and that since the solution sought would see their homes removed, it would be unfair to issue any such order in their absence.

The court also noted that states have immunity before the courts and that the Superior Court of Quebec would not be able to judge Israel as a state. It noted that even though the state of Israel was not impleaded as a party, "...the Plaintiffs indirectly seek the essential finding that it is committing a war crime, thereby effectively by-passing Israel's absolute immunity to any judicial proceedings." (Para 317).

The Judge also criticizes the Plaintiff's for 'jurisdiction shopping' and for choosing Quebec as a jurisdiction to which their claims have only the slightest connection.

The decision is a bit of a long read, but is clearly written and accessible to anyone interested. It is also a case of lawfare. As the judge pointed out, the Plaintiffs in this case were jurisdiction shopping, had recognized the jurisdiction of Israeli courts and picked a place with dubious connection to the case to seek judgement. It was an attempt to have a Quebec court decide a principle of international law and do indirectly what was not allowed directly.

Justice should not be denied, but seeking judgements in the courts of foreign jurisdictions for actions having no relation to the country where the court sits certainly gives the appearance of a political stunt to use the justice system to accomplish what other courts have not allowed.

Simon and Garfunkel Tribute in Tel Aviv

2009-10-10T00:38:00.003-04:00

A Simon and Garfunkel tribute concert is to be performed in Tel Aviv by two Israeli musicians.

This is really barely newsworthy, but kind of cool for me on a personal level given that I grew up listening to Simon and Garfunkel and was lucky enough to see them in concert twice.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T08:11:00.004-04:00

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to US President Barak Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

A hearty congratulations to the president.

Still though, as much I like Obama and would have voted for him if I could, has he really done enough to merit this prize? He has not been in office for a year yet and for all his well intended words, what has he accomplished?

It's true he has spoken of nuclear disarmament, he has reached out to the Arab world, he's appointed a Middle East Peace envoy, but in all this, his country is fighting two wars which do not seem to be drawing to a close, the Middle East remains as bellicose as ever, and for all his multi-lateralism, places like Cuba remain sealed off from much of the world by a US embargo, Chavez rages in Venezuela and those indicted for genocide in Darfur remain free.

As much as I hate to admit it, I actually agree with Hamas on this one with their comment: "Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward...Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace."

Obama has made steps in the right direction, but accomplished precious little. Indeed, the Nobel committee is praising Obama for creating a new international climate: of of multi-lateralism and dialogue. This is no great achievement, however, coming after a president like Bush. It's not so much that Obama has brought about a new climate, he's restored an old one that we had not seen for the past 9 years.

Still, congratulations to the President and here's to hoping that the burden of being a winner of this prize will drive him to work even harder for peace and will lend him and his country even greater credibility in its efforts to broker agreements and speak with influence around the world.
For my part, however, I would still have preferred someone like this.

New Directions In Israeli Foreign Policy

2009-10-08T01:55:00.007-04:00

A so-called "secret" document outlining recommendations for a major overhaul of Israeli foreign policy was leaked to the JPost on October 7, 2009. The document, which seems to have been written in the last few weeks, begins with the premise that the entire Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is centered around the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It outlines three major areas of change 1) a realignment of Israels relations to include a larger variety of countries and regions so as to decrease dependence on the US. 2) A decrease in expectations for peace with Palestinians and 3) a firm, unapologetic confrontation of all incidents of antisemitism.

On the first point, the document does not suggest that Israel break of or lessen relations with the US which is described as Israel's best friend in the world. Instead, it suggests that Israel has ignored major portions of the world, in particular Latin America and Africa and that diplomatic and economic relations with these regions needed to be (re)established. The paper makes the point that this slight realignment may even have the effect of strengthening the influence of the US in the middle east because it's relationship with Israel could remain warm, but still somewhat more distant, improving the US's appearances of neutrality.

Naturally, this type of strategy is good for any state. Indeed, in many ways, an analogy may be drawn with Canada which has a very unique relationship with the US and has, as a result, seen its influence in other parts of the world wane. The strategy suggested by this report is similar to ones Canada has adopted. Undoubtedly, the more friends a country has in the world, the more influence, security and prosperity it can count on. Israeli efforts to establish economic relationships in these "neglected" parts of the world can see a change in the current situation where nearly one third of all Israeli exports, a middle eastern country, go to the US and not to markets closer to home in Africa, Asia and Europe.

As though to prove a commitment to this type of outreach, in early September Lieberman himself visited 5 African countries. Though one of the purposes of the trip was to encourage African countries to help 'moderate' the attitudes of their Arab friends, it also resulted in the signing of economic agreements with the promise from Africans that more can come if peace does too. Later in September, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister met with his South African counterpart as well.

The second point--reducing expectations for peace--suggests that there should be a shift away from efforts for an immediate peace agreement and rather more focus on calming tension on the ground.

Here the paper has things only half right. Efforts should certainly be made to calm the situation on the ground. Extreme settlers should be reined in, settlement expansion should stop, as many checkpoints as possible should be removed without endangering peace, efforts to share water resources should be increased, and trade and investment should be encouraged through regulatory and practical security measures. In other words, people should feel more at ease, less restricted, safer, happier, more prosperous. This being said, the drive for peace should not be dismissed as overly enthusiastic or optimistic. On the contrary, both ordinary citizens and leaders should be excited about peace, should talk about it non-stop, speak of how good things could be and drive the process forward, deliberately, courageously and steadfastly. Reducing expectations is the wrong move, Israel should of course remain realistic, but enthusiasm for peace is sorely lacking.

Taking this analysis to a colder level, it is to Israel's advantage from a PR point of view to speak of peace with enthusiasm. This way, if talks are not successful, Israel can always point to its enthusiasm for peace. Certainly, a party to a peace agreement that continually says "don't get excited, we're going nowhere fast" will not come out looking good should their self fulfilling prophesy come to be. Of course, such a PR victory can only be achieved if Israel doesn't say one thing and then do quite the opposite.

The third point is an unapologetic confrontation of antisemitism wherever it appears. The paper states that it seeks to not only fight classical antisemitism, but also "...boycotts of Israeli goods and academic institutions, and...political-legal suits against Israeli leaders and military personnel visiting Europe." In other words, what can be considered antisemitic is more than a world leader or group saying 'I hate Jews', it also includes examples of the Swedish Ambassador being the only EU Ambassador to attend the swearing in of Iran's Holocaust denying President.

Here a very fine line is being walked. Yes, Israel calls itself the Jewish State. It is the world's only Jewish nation state, and naturally, the state itself and much of its population and leaders would probably take personal offence to antisemitism. This being said, it's dubious that Israel speaks for all Jews all over the world. In confronting antisemitism, Israel is speaking for more than just itself, it is purporting to speak for all Jews.

It's also going to be difficult to draw the line at what antisemitism is without "watering down" the term or sounding hysterical. No doubt, hate must be confronted wherever it is found. It must be rooted out and cut down. Period. What is this hate though? Certainly it would be legitimate to criticize Israel, it's policies on a number of issues, its government, it's track record on human rights. It would not be legitimate to suggest that Israel should not exist, that it is illegitimate, or that it should not be allowed to defend itself. What of boycotts though? This almost requires a case by case analysis. If the behaviours in Israel which is encouraging people to want to boycott Israel exists in other countries, and those countries are not boycotted, then certainly their is an appearance of a double standard. If Israel is being singled out for doing what all other states do, then it is certainly legitimate for Israel to at least ask the question, "how come you're only picking on me?"

The policy paper walks along a very slippery slope on the antisemitism question and while hate must be confronted, there comes a time when battles must be chosen...

It will be interesting to see, in the coming months if the trend of the Africa visits continues and Israel continues along the path outlined in this paper. Some of it is quite good, but much of it (at least from the way it sounds in the JPost) could use some more work.

US's Big Guns to Get Peace Talks Moving

2009-10-07T00:49:00.003-04:00

US Peace envoy Mitchell will be arriving in the middle east on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 and it's expected he's going to bring out the big guns to ensure that peace talks start again. It should be said, this time those guns really do seem pretty big.

According to sources in Jerusalem, it is expected that since the US lobbied so hard to make the potentially damaging Goldstone report on the war against Hamas disappear, they're expecting that Israel now owes them something. That something, will be to listen-up, do as the US suggests and get peace talks back on track.

This comes amidst warning from the President of Egypt that the region cannot 'afford' failed peace talks and that it was silly to resume talks anywhere other than where they left off under the Olmert government. These days, however, Netanyahu is saying that he's not bound by what Olmert did during his time as Prime Minister or, in other words, that he's not bound by Annapolis. Mr. Mubarak has this one right. Israel should pick up where it left off with any adjustments necessary to reflect any new realities that may exist. Beginning at square one when much has already been agreed upon is a waste of time and energies. In Egypt's view, the next step along the path is for Israel to freeze all settlement building.

Meanwhile, Abbas, who has elected not to pursue the Goldstone report with the UN has also cautioned Israel to start meaningful peace talks or risk having the report revived. This really translates to: "freeze settlements or we'll take Goldstone's report to the UN." This is because the Palestinians have predicated new peace talks on a full Israeli freeze of all settlement activity. Assuming there has not been a change of heart by Abbas, it means that Israel is about to face crushing pressure from the US to do what it takes to restart peace talks and the PA may find themselves holding all the cards, able to dictate to Israel the preconditions for peace talks.

Meanwhile, in other, not obviously related news, Fatah and Hamas are about to reconcile their differences and US Secretary of State Clinton is pressuring Arab government to normalize ties with Israel. If Clinton is successful and if Hamas and Fatah really create a function unified Palestinian government, Israel will find itself very short on excuses for stalling, if that was what it had in mind.

Perhaps the circumstances have come together in just the right mix to encourage meaningful talks to begin.

Joranian Initiative on Red Sea to Dead Sea Canal

2009-10-05T01:25:00.004-04:00

The Jordanian government has decided to move ahead with plans to build the Red Sea to Dead Sea water carrier on its own in the face of slow decision making within Israel and amongst Palestinians. Jordan apparently is so parched that the plan, which calls for water to be transferred from the Red Sea--some of it desalinated for human consumption, some of it sent to the Dead Sea to refill the latter and all of it to generate hydroelectricity--simply cannot wait any longer. There have been no objections to Jordan's initiative by either Israel or Palestinians.

This project is not a new idea and has its critics which have pointed out that the plan could be an ecological disaster and leaves many important questions unanswered. Some concerns relate to chemical imbalances that may be created in the Dead Sea, the impact this will have on the land and flora and fauna and the almost obvious question, what happens when the Dead Sea is full?

As early as 2002 Israeli government studies reported favorably on such a project. It is clear that something must be done to protect the Dead Sea, which is both an economic (tourism, chemical works) resource and an ecological gem recognized by its candidacy to be a natural wonder of the world. Other than the hydroelectric advantages it offers, would it not make more sense to heed the advice of environmental groups and look at easing pressure on the Jordan river to save the Dead Sea rather than creating new, salt-water rivers? Certainly, if water from the Red Sea can be desalinated, could it not be distributed throughout Jordan (and Israel and the West Bank) to ease the pressure upstream on the Red Sea?

The answer to this question would likely require far more technical expertise than is available on this blog, but environmental groups, and other bloggers, such as "Green Prophet" seem to be asking the same question.

Forgetting the environment for just a moment, however, stories like this are always encouraging reminders of the ability of states, including those with relatively new peace treaties and those between whom peace is not even yet secured, to cooperate when they must. Yes, Jordan is working alone here, but that is not to say the other governments involved will not play their role as soon as they can and it is significant that this decision which will impact three countries is meeting no objection. Once again, water proves to be a tie that binds and encourages cooperation rather than a divisive one.

Gulf States, the Peace Process and the Pax Americana

2009-10-04T01:56:00.005-04:00

This interesting article by Yoel Guzansky, a researcher at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) examines the role gulf states could play in the Palestinian Israeli peace process.

The article points out a few interesting points, such as the reluctance of smaller gulf states to adopt foreign policy totally independent from Saudi Arabia's and the latter country's recent willingness to tolerate such Independence from its neighbours. This new independence may make it easy for these states to reopen the Israeli trade missions that once existed in Oman and Qatar and were closed in solidarity with Palestinians during times of violence.

The article explains that Israels interests in good relations with the gulf is to bolster moderates in the region and to entrench support from these countries against increasing Iranian influence.

These states, however have an interest in Israel for certain technological reasons but above all, because close ties with Israel are a way to improve relations with the US.

These states are also likely needed for a final peace solution, not only, as Guzansky, argues to host conferences and the like, but also because their financial clout could help to pay the compensation for Palestinian refugees which will likely be needed in a peace deal which will no doubt contain some payment to those refugees who will not be resettled in Israel, if any of them are settled there at all.

The article seems to be suggesting that the primary reason for Israel to engage with these states is to help counter Iran's growing influence in the region. To do re-establish, these ties however, in the words of the Prime Minister of Oman, Israel would have to end the reasons for closing down the mission or somehow "...mitigate the suffering of our brothers in Palestine." As mentioned previously, however, this may have been done in the current government's recent attitude towards settlements. On the other hand, however, it is in the interests of these states to contain Iranian influence in the Gulf region anyway, with or without Israeli support. Therefore, this begs the question, if Israel's primary gain from relations with these states is something that these states are going to do anyway, why bother making any concessions?

The answer to the above question should be obvious. Closer ties are desirable in all circumstances, and as the article points out, if relations with these states yield positive results, the breaking of the taboo of Gulf-state relations with Israel could lead to a domino effect, making it easier and more acceptable for other Arab states to have positive relations. It also makes these states more inclined to want to see a peaceful solution for the region and to not remain at arms length from the issue.

They key to all this, however, is the US. The Gulf State's main interest is to improve ties with the US just as the US is the only country Israel would really heed when push came to shove. The case of the Gulf states, in particular, seems to highlight the importance of the US's involvement in the peace process and the good it can do.

Prisoner Exchange for a Video of Schalit

2009-10-01T01:36:00.004-04:00

The Israeli government has approved the release of 20 female Palestinian prisoners for a video that will confirm the status of Gilad Schalit, held in captivity by Hamas for over 3 years.

I first came across this story here, but upon further investigation, there's more to it than CNN says.

For one, this is not an exchange for 20 prisoners in order to get the video in addition to other prisoners who will be released in exchange for Schalit. The reality is that the 20 will be subtracted from the final number agreed upon in exchange for Gilad. Also, Gilad will receive a book of psalms delivered to him via the President of Egypt himself.

It is also worth pointing out that normally, around Ramadan (this time of year) Israel traditionally releases some prisoners. This year, for some reason, they did not. These prisoners then, are not so much a "bonus" as they may be seen as the traditional Ramadan release.

This first major accomplishment for the negotiating team put in place by Netanyahu's government received the reactions that one may expect from each side. Hamas celebrated this exchange as a great victory and praised the Hamas military wing for such a successful operation. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders merely said that though the decision is hard, they just want Gilad brought home. While the Schalit family is on board, some right wing groups are saying that Israel is giving up too much. One Israeli should be worth one Palestinian they argue, no more no less. This is of course a position that is not particularly helpful as clearly, it would lead nowhere.

The list of Palestinians to be released is available here, but only in Hebrew. Their names are on the right and the reason for their detention is on the left. While I don't have specific details on what exactly each of them did, in the offences section, many have attempted murder next to their name. Others have illegal carrying of weapons and "violence against a soldier." Also, by examining the list it appears that many of them were scheduled for release within the next two years or so. The official statement regarding their release is also available here in English.

Some in Israel think that this video release is not a real sign of anything, and that it may just be a stalling tactic by Hamas, or a means for Hamas to show goodwill towards Egypt to help in the reconciliation talks with Fatah.

I think there's a bit more behind this though. First, consider the enormous pressure the Israeli government is under. Gilad's family has been working hard to keep his plight in the public eye and many Israelis support their desire to see him freed at almost any cost.

Second, consider that--stemming from this first point--historically, Israel has gone to extreme lengths to protect its citizens and especially its soldiers (see this as just one relatively recent example.) This video the Israelis hope for is more than proof of life. It's comfort for Gilad's family, friends and a nation that is deeply concerned about his welfare.

On the other hand, if Hamas is particularly cruel or crafty, they could release a video showing Gilad to be alive, but in horrific conditions which would do little to comfort the family and have the effect of increasing domestic pressure on the Israeli government to redeem this captive and ease his suffering without further delay.

More Awesome Archeology!

2009-09-27T16:26:00.003-04:00

Coins were recently discovered in Egypt from the era of the biblical "forefather" Joseph. They bear engravings with Josephs name on them as well as symbols related to stories about Joseph that are recorded in the Old Testament.

Not only does this point to the veracity of some of the biblical tale, but it is also being touted by archeologist's as proof that coins were used in ancient Egypt. A theory that had heretofore been of much discussion and unproven.

I've often heard it said that there was no archaeological proof of the biblical story of the exodus. I wonder if this is further or even the first proof of Jewish presence in ancient Egypt.

Fascinating!

The Water Carriers

2009-09-27T12:54:00.004-04:00

Only one article in the "right" leaning Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot (YNet) reports on a group of what is (unsurprisingly) described as a group of "leftist" activists who delivered drinking water to Palestinians living in the South Hebron Hills.

The activists, come from well known peace groups like Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc) which are, on the Israeli spectrum, considered to be to the left of groups like Peace Now and have been criticized for radicalism.

In this case, the group crossed a checkpoint on foot where the IDF had blocked the passage of the buses and taker truck they were riding in. The IDF had, for some reason not explained in the YNet article, declared the area a closed military zone. Evidently, the tanker somehow managed to get into the area anyway and water was distributed to people who were, apparently, living on 15 liters of water a day.

The Administration of the area said that they do provide water to the Palestinian residents of the area, but it is argued by the activists that this water comes from too far and is over 10 times more expensive than the water available in Israel.

Gush Shalom has posted a press release where they argue that Israel has a "Policy of Thirst" and that they hope to starve out people they cannot legally deport. Other groups have in the past reported similar denials of services to the Palestinians of this region. Without further information though, it seems that there's a major piece missing from this story. If the area was a closed military zone, it's remarkable to believe that the IDF would allow a bulldozer to travel with the activists and remove any roadblocks along the way to let the water tanker through. It provides the impression that the walk across the military line and the emotive language used in the Gush Shalom release is for PR purposes.

This being said, this is one more case where water, the universal need for water and the recognition of that need by good, concerned people, leads to the creation of connections and contacts that can change perceptions about the "other." The Gush Shalom activists, be they right, left or centre, whether they were pulling a PR stunt or whether they truly took the only course of action they felt was available to them, may have achieved a great deal in convincing Palestinians that Israelis are not all soldiers and that stupid, unfair policies that deny fair access to resources like water to Palestinians are recognized as stupid and unfair by ordinary Israelis who want to do the right thing.

Villagers From Each Side Turn the Green Line Green

2009-09-27T03:30:00.003-04:00

Ha'Aretz is carrying a story about a small village in the West Bank called Wadi Fukin and their cooperation with their neighbours on the other side of the "green line" in Tzur Hadassah to protect their distinct way of life--and more specifically, the water resources that life depends on--via the Friends of the Earth-Middle East "Good Water Neighbors" project.

The article explains that Wadi Fukin is a village that employs agricultural methods that have probably not changed in centuries and that these methods are highly dependant on natural water sources around the village. The problem is that the Security Barrier is projected to pass through an area near the village which would have the effect not only of reducing the amount of land available to the Palestinian villagers but its construction could very likley damage the springs that support the village's unique way of life and potentially decimate its economy.

Villagers from Tzur Hadassah, including a woman involved in the Adam Institute, are working with the people of Wadi Fukin to petition Israel to reconsider the route of the security barrier in that sector. One key argument being used is that because of the unique agriculture in the area, the area has been declared a World Heritage site and the fence could destroy that. Unfortunately, this is only sort of true. The village does not appear anywhere on the UNESCO World Heritage website because the Palestinians have not signed the World Heritage treaty.

Whether the site is really a world heritage site or not, is irrelevant. It is, however, illustrative of some other key information missing from this article that would be helpful to know. For example, the petition to stop construction of the security barrier was signed years ago. Information on the fence in that area is hard to come by though and it's not clear if it has been built at all. Certainly, the cooperation between the villages on either side of the green line have been successful in delaying construction, but the article leaves both the future and current situations unclear.

Naturally, the desire to protect the environment is a good thing and especially water resources in this arid region. Just as it's important to protect culture, especially one as old and distinct as the one in Wadi Fukin. Cooperating over water, a resource needed by all does and will continue to have the effect of bringing people together as it has in this case. The cooperation across the green line for water, and for initiatives like this vegetable co-op, can only serve to increase and improve mutual understanding, dialogue and ultimately peace on a human, individual level, something that is just as important as on the governmental one, if not more so.

The security barrier, however, has saved lives. If the barrier can be re-routed in this sector, or other measures put in place, as Friends of the Earth-Middle East asserts, then there should be no hesitation to adopt alternate plans. If not, however, the choice becomes much more difficult, culture and the environment versus human lives and security. The choice is not an easy one. In the meantime, however, it's nice to see that the green line, at least in this area, is truly turning green.

We Can Learn A Lot From the Comics

2009-09-27T02:35:00.004-04:00

I know this is meant to refernce US politics and health care reform being discussed in that country, but this makes the point so well that the worst evil in the history of the world--Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust--is not comperable to anything or anyone in our world today.

I realize this may be too small to see but you can find the original here, published September 27, 2009.

Netanyahu at the GA

2009-09-26T03:57:00.004-04:00

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly of the UN.

Given the coverage of his meeting with Abbas a matter of hours earlier and the press coverage it garnered, Netanyahu's GA speech does not seem to be generating too much media buzz, especially not in Israeli media where it could have been expected that coverage would be greater. From Israeli English language media, only YNet carried a story on the speech a day after it was given while CNN gave it mention as well as did the Washington Post.

The YNet article on the speech gushed over it and not surprisingly, the YouTube links below to the speech (from Fox news apparently) refer to it as Churchillian, which is quite the over exaggeration.

The speech wasn't bad, but neither was it Churchillian nor was it great. It was a logical, coherent presentation of Israel's position on various matters relating to the UN.

The first part of the speech was a pointed attack on the Iranian President who had spoken the day before. Netanyahu produced Nazi documents, including the blueprints for Auschwitz as he asked the Iranian President, rhetorically, if all these documents, if the tattoos on survivors' arms and if the admission of the German government were lies. He then went on to praise countries that had refused to listen to Ahmedinejad speak while asking of the ones that stayed if they had either shame or decency. This is the first place where Netanyahu falters. Leaving the room when Ahmedinejad spoke should be seen as the correct move. It sends a message to him and to others that his rhetoric is not acceptable. Listening to him speak, however, does not accord him legitimacy. Lambasting those that stayed in the room is not the way to make friends and influence people. A more effective move by Netanyahu may have been to expand more on the evils of Holocaust denial, about how it's patently false and about why denying the Holocaust is such an affront. It would then be appropriate and perhaps even more convincing to explain that walking out on hatred like Ahmedinejad's is the best was to confront him.

The second portion of the speech examines and raises the spectre of the marriage of fanaticism and nuclear weapons specifically with regards to Iran. This portion of the speech was strong, but an effective addition would have to add a line or two on why Iran deserves such close attention when other states like Israel and the US, don't. The answer is in the reliability of the state. The fact that some states are less predictable and stable than others.

What is probably the most upsetting part of Netanyahu's speech was "The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging." What this is meant to convey is the third portion of the speech where Netanyahu criticize the UN for its silence on rockets launched at Gaza and it's disproportionate attention to Israel. The latter arguments are generally well presented by Netanyahu, but his opening is troubling and sounds almost as though he's suggesting that the UN itself is somehow on trial, or not quite a legitimate body. Netanyahu's critiques of the UN hit the nail on the head, but the above quote seems to imply that the UN's work in aid, health, food supplies, help for refugees, development, the promotion of culture and the like are still 'being judged.' Netanyahu chose his words here badly, it's unclear if this is what he meant, bu if so, it should not sit well with anyone.

His arguments about denying Israel's right to self defense are also somewhat shaky. He mentions how those that supported the withdraw from Gaza in Israel thought that at least now they could have support in self defense. Netanyahu argues that after being condemned for self defence Israel will be less assured of the support of the world in taking security risks for peace. This could certainly be interpreted as don't criticize Israel, no matter what, because then we won't trust you. Israelis know they are not and never pretended to be angels, but here Netanyahu seems to be foreclosing the UN from criticizing it. One hopes that this is not what he means to say.

In his final comments Netanyahu reiterated much of the language used in his major foreign policy address earlier on. It reiterates the assertion that Israel is a Jewish state and that Jews are indigenous to Israel. It's also the only part of the speech that drew applause hen Netanyahu stated Israel wanted to live in peace aside the Palestinians.

Netanyahu made his points well and eloquently in English as he often does, but this was no Churchill speech and its impact and implications are likely quite small.

No Great Moments at Abbas, Netanyahu, Obama Meeting

2009-09-24T02:32:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, Obama managed to herd the cats, Abbas and Netanyahu into a meeting to talk about jump-starting peace talks. Obama was apparently rather terse and blunt in the meeting (at least the parts open to the public) and told the two leaders that the time has come for action and that talking about talking was useless.

Of course, the next step planned out was to set up meeting to talk about talking some more. A series of low level meetings between Palestinian and Israeli officials are to take place over the coming weeks to lay the groundwork for serious negotiations between the sides. What's noteworthy, however, is that both sides walked away from the meeting with Obama with vastly different impressions of where they stood.

Netanyahu left the meeting feeling that the demand that Israel freeze all settlement activity has been dropped while Abbas left the meeting feeling that Israel's next step was to withdraw to the pre-67 borders. Obviously, there's a deep misunderstanding on even fundamental questions such as who does what next.

Obama made clear that he felt that this next, anticipated round of talks should begin where they left off, that nothing starts from scratch. According to Netanyahu in this interesting interview he gave to CNN (worth reading in toto) Netanyahu is explicit that he does not believe there are any previous agreements with the Palestinians. He has also made clear that he does not consider himself bound by any agreements made by previous governments. This of course places him diametrically opposed to Abbas who points out that the roadmap to peace calls for a full settlement freeze, a somewhat problematic assertion considering that Netanyahu doesn’t seem to believe he is bound by the roadmap. The interview reiterates the point made by Netanyahu in his foreign policy address earlier in the summer that the major obstacle to peace was the failure of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

The reaction to the talks in Israel have been largely uniform as well, no matter which point on the political spectrum they originate from. The uniformity is in criticism. Settlers and those to the right of Netanyahu say that he did not go far enough in defending the settlements while those to his left also say he's not done enough--rather he's done nothing. Other editorialists have commented that the whole meeting was really just a joke and that it didn't even mark the start of a real peace process.

This is simply wrong and a failure to read between the lines. First, consider that the two leaders, even if it was against their will, met face to face to talk about how to move forward, peacefully. Second, consider that low level talks will be taking place between the two sides to lay the groundwork for more serious discussions. The indications are that communications and discussions will be taking place and that these will be monitored at the highest levels of the US government, meaning, no doubt, that the highest levels of the Israeli and Palestinian governments will be keeping a short leash on their low level officials, watching what happens at every step of the way. It is this dialogue, these murmurs between Israelis and Palestinians which could ultimately bring about better understanding of the other's negotiating position and more efficient ways of moving it forward.

Indeed, one glimpse of this improved understanding is perhaps the most fascinating incident of the whore meeting. While underscoring the vast lack of understanding many Israelis have of Palestinians, Israeli foreign minister Lieberman commented on how impressed he was by Palestinian negotiator Erekat's excellent Hebrew. How strange that an Israeli foreign Minister should be surprised that the lead negotiator of a government speaks the language of his neighbor and partner for negotiations well. It would behoove more Israelis to learn Arabic, one day, they may need those linguistic skills for tourism.

Inchallah.

More Reasons I should Have Been an Archeologist!

2009-09-23T01:58:00.002-04:00

Again, more reasons I wish I were an archeologist. I just can't help it, I find this stuff so fascinating.

Obama, Abbas, Netanyahu: More Than a Photo-Op

2009-09-22T01:21:00.004-04:00

Just last week, prior to the Jewish new year, Israeli media was reporting that there was a long way to go before a proposed meeting between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could take place on the margins of the UN general assembly in New York. It was said the sides were too far apart, that Israel would not agree to a full settlement freeze and the PA would not meet with Netanyahu until such a freeze was in place. Then, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum: despite the impasse, Obama simply invited Abbas and Netanyahu to meet and neither of them could refuse. How could they?! The US president requests their presence at a joint meeting, to act as a mediator, to move the peace process forward--if the sides were already trading accusations that the other was acting as an obstacle to peace, saying no to the US president would have made very clear who was not willing to go the distance.

The PA was quick to apply a caveat to the tripartite meeting, as it is being called. A PA spokesman made clear that the PA did not consider the meeting a resumption of peace talks and that such talks would not begin until all settlement activity was frozen. Then, in a statement that underscores the challenges that lie ahead, Hamas issued a statement that they do not recognize Abbas as a representative of the Palestinian people and will not be bound by anything he does. The complications this presents are self-evident, as a significant portion of Palestinian territory and population are subtracted from the meeting and that the process taking place in the West Bank would have to be duplicated for the Gaza strip.

Netanyahu too has chinks in his negotiating armour as well, though perhaps not as obvious as the PA's. This chink is the in the form of Member of the Knesset Danny Danon who is suggesting that Netanyahu is not being true to Likud Party values and is meeting not only with US politicians but also leads a group of Likud parliamentarians critical of and upset with the idea that Netanyahu would ever negotiate with the Palestinians. For a better idea of what Danon believes, check out his website where he calls for an immediate end to all talks relating to the establishment of a Palestinian state, or even better, watch this clip where he explains his opposition.

So, President Obama is faced with a meeting between two leaders who each enjoy questionable support from their populations, one of whom does not want to be there at all and is trying to control the title of the meeting, and the other is more or less hamstrung by his domestic political situation. No wonder the White House is playing down the chances of success these meetings may have.

It really is not very important what the meeting is called though. It could be called a photo-op, a Broadway Show tunes Singalong Summit or the Palestinian-Israeli Twister Championships. What's important, is that Abbas and Netanyahu will be meeting, in the same room as the leader of what is perhaps the only country in the world able to broker any type of peace deal. As is evident from the meeting itself, which for a while looked like it would not happen until Obama stepped in, what is said publicly, is often quite different than what actually happens.

It should not be a surprise if as a result of this meeting each side is able to announce a face-saving measure allowing peace talks to begin. Netanyahu for example may be able to announce that some schools or communal (not housing) construction can take place in the settlements while Abbas would be able to promise his people that no new people will be moved to the West Bank and that perhaps further checkpoints and roadblocks will be removed, easing life for his people. This may not be an ideal situation, but it's something that may allow Abbas to back down from his hardline position and allow Netanyahu to placate the vultures circling within his own party. This is exactly the type of "upgrade" the US is hoping will come from this meeting.

In any event, stay tuned for some great photography, an emotive rendition of Memories from cats or Mr. Netanyahu's right hand on the yellow square. It will be interesting in all cases but will likely not be a waste of time.

Gaza's Water: Everyone's Problem

2009-09-21T01:33:00.003-04:00

To summarize a summary, a recent UN report has found that the availability and quality of drinking water in the Gaza strip is hovering somewhere around dismal and is so bad, that high concentrations of nitrates in some of the water is leading to non-fatal medical conditions that turn babies blue.

The report finds that many of the problems existing in the Gaza strip have existed for many years. The cause of this tends to be overuse of the underground water aquifers (here known as the coastal aquifer) which is being polluted by a number of sources, including improper waste disposal and insufficient sewage treatment. The report points out that some sewage facilities were damaged in Operation Cast Lead and that this has exacerbated the pre-existing problem as well.

The report makes a number of recommendations related to the water situation. Some of these are: Remove water from the ongoing conflict in the region; Provide safe water to infants; Rest the coastal aquifer; Develop alternative water supply to the Gaza Strip; Improve efficiency of the water supply network; Eliminate all inflow of salty and nitrate-containing recharge into the groundwater; Establish new sewage treatment plant(s); Improve the sewage system; Decontaminate sewage ponds and Wadi Gaza; Rebuild environmental governance.

Much of what is being recommended here is the responsibility of Gazans--to improve governance for example, to ensure the proper resources are dedicated to sewage treatment and to be judicious in their water use. Finding other sources of water falls into this category as well, but the report makes an interesting point: the coastal Aquifer is shared with Israel and Egypt and so these two countries will need to assist with its maintenance.

This point is so important because it's a demonstration that water--being a universally required resource--provides the opportunity for cooperation and the building of peaceful, collaborative ties rather than conflict. This aquifer, used by so many people and in so many countries needs to be protected by all so that it can be used by all. Damage to the aquifer by Gaza will harm the ability of Israelis and Egyptians to benefit from it as well. In this respect, it is in the interests of these two countries to ensure that overuse and bad governance in Gaza does not imperil their own access to water and one such way would be to assist in helping to provide new sources of water.

For example, Israel is a world leader in water desalination boasting one of the worlds largest and most efficient such facilities in the world. Similarly, other Arab states like Saudi Arabia are at the vanguard of desalinization as well, with Saudi Arabia able to claim title to the worlds largest desalination facility. Imagine the potential for a confluence of Israeli or Saudi Technology, with the ability of Saudi, Egypt, the US, EU or other donors to construct such a facility in Gaza. There would be universal benefit. Benefit to Egypt and Israel in helping to preserve the coastal Aquifer, benefit to the companies providing the technology in question, benefit to the people of Gaza for having cleaner, more accessible water, benefit to the donors, not only for the prestige, but for helping to improve stability ion the region, stability that would result from the cooperation of all the players that would be required to make the project happen.

In the meantime, however, though the report does not touch on this in any more than a superficial manner, it seems that even with outside support, not much will change in Gaza without a change to the circumstances which make true statements such as "Environmental governance in the Gaza Strip has been weakened by internal political developments, as well as by the recent escalation of hostilities."

Mitchell's Shuttle Diplomacy

2009-09-18T00:53:00.004-04:00

There is a massive amount of attention in the Israeli media being placed on the recent report written by the commission led by Justice Goldstone which is, unfortunately, overshadowing frantic efforts by US peace envoy Mitchell to cobble together some sort of peace mini-summit or chat about restarting Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. Nonetheless, Mr. Mitchell seems to be working very hard and is picking up a great many frequent flier miles.

In recent days Mitchell has been in Israel, Egypt and Jordan trying to apply pressure to bring about the conditions to allow any sort of discussion on peace to take place at the UN General Assembly in New York where Netanyahu will, no doubt, be spending his time fending off diplomatic attacks against his country in the wake of the Goldstone report.

In Israel, Mitchell met with The Prime Minister

and the President Peres

which in both cases seem to have resulted in little more than nice statements about how peace is within reach and that September should not be allowed to pass without seizing the opportunity to restart talks. Nonetheless, the US and Israel are still quite far apart on the issue of peace with the US insisting on a freeze on settlement building for at least one year and Israel offering only 6 months.

Mitchell also met with Egyptian President Mubarak and his Security Advisor where the post meeting statement said little more than that the US is encouraging all parties to take responsibility for peace, but curiously, mentioned nothing about any Egyptian position on the matter or what Egypt will be doing.

His next stop was Jordan, where he met with the King who urged Israel not to obstruct peace with the building of settlements.

Mitchell's next stop will be back to Israel to meet Netanyahu again, and then to meet PA President Abbas. All this shuttling around seems like it may be working though. Signals are coming from the Palestinians that Abbas may be willing to meet with Netanyahu in New York after all as a result of US pressure. This is the only reason they would meet, however, and the PA stands by its position that no real negotiations can resume until the settlements are frozen.

This can only be good news. With the PA insistence on settlement freezes and the domestic political difficulties Netanyahu faces at such a prospect each side perpetuates a vicious cycle where talks would never begin. Settlement construction should stop, but settlement construction is not the issue upon which peace will be made or will fall. Issues like Jerusalem, the right of return and final borders are. Only negotiations will solve these issues and holding them off until the other side does something very difficult, politically makes Netanyahu look like a rejectionist for not taking a bold step and telling the settlers "no" and makes Abbas look obstinate for not agreeing to at least start talking and see where things go, or to accept part of what he's asking for as a precondition to negotiations.

This seems to be part of what Mitchell means when he says all parties need to take responsibility for peace. Israelis need to realize how hated the settlements are and act against them. Palestinians need to realize that they will need to be flexible in what they ask for. Arab states like Egypt and Jordan need to approach Palestinians as friends and tell them negotiations are in their best interests for their goals of statehood. Everyone has a job they can do, and nobodies job is easy.

A meeting of any kind in New York will be good news. It may give the leaders a taste for talking and inspire in each of them the realization that they can together, do something great for their people. It also gives them each an opportunity, a pretext of sorts to preserve their honour and back down from their stubborn positions by finding something that each can say they gained from talks and which allows them to continue. Talking, directly, at any level of formality is the right way to go. Mitchell seems to be successfully pushing in the right direction.

Predictability from Goldstone

2009-09-16T00:23:00.004-04:00

CAVEAT: the following it written prior to having read the report that is the subject of this post in great detail. I have only had the opportunity to read the executive summary and certain other sections rather quickly. As such, it is my intention to read more thoroughly over the coming few days and provide more comment.

Cue the chorals. "Goldstone the Jew" and the UN commission he led has published its report entitled "HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES" which had as its mandate "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after." Critics are lining up to take shots at the report, from NGOs, to bloggers to governments, (also) everyone has an opinion.

The report is perhaps somewhat predictable given the criticism that was leveled at it even in advance of its publication. It concludes that both Israelis and Palestinians committed war crimes during the period of the mandate it was to have investigated and proposed that if Israel failed to conduct a serious independent investigation of the report's findings, it should be sent to the defendants docket at the International Criminal Court in the Hague upon receiving the requisite recommendation from the UN security council. Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Statute of the ICC and so only the UNSC would be able to order a trial against Israel (see article 13.) This is a position that Israel may never find itself in so long as it has friends on the UNSC that hold vetos. It's hard to imagine the US allowing Israel to be brought before the Hague.

The report is heavy on testimony--some of it perhaps skewed by Palestinian witnesses who seemed reluctant to discuss certain matters in full--by individuals and information provided by Hamas, but notes that the Israeli government would not cooperate with the mission writing the report. This article suggests that perhaps Israel should have overwhelmed the mission with its account of events and refuted in detail every accusation against it, to combat the distasteful outcome of the document produced. The urge to say "told you so, Israel" it too strong to resist. It is also worth noting that the report acknowledges that the information they gathered at no time meets the standards required to make a case against any party for war crimes, meaning the authors acknowledge that what they have been told or found could be little more than speculation or entirely untrue.

The report also delves into areas that have nothing to do with operation Cast Lead or the Gaza strip. It pronounces dubious suggestions of Israel persecuting dissent, questions the integrity of Israeli courts and looks at activities in the West Bank, having no connection to Cast Lead.

One area that could prove to be more controversial than others is the question of the status of Gaza as an occupied territory. An occupier has certain obligations towards the occupied population. This includes, for example, the obligation to provide food to the population of the occupied territory. Much of the criticism of Israel in this report stems from the premise that the Gaza Strip remains occupied territory and so Israel failed in many of the obligations it would have as an occupier. This is a flawed position. The Gaza strip is not occupied territory, a position thoughtfully presented here. It is true that the Gaza strip is more or less under siege by Israel, but Israel has no obligation to supply or trade with the population of a region governed by an enemy. Israel has no more obligation to the people of Gaza than it does to those in south Lebanon.

The report correctly based its position that Israel occupies Gaza on the point of the effective control test. It wanted to see if Israel effectively controlled the Gaza strip. It's conclusion that during Cast Lead, Israel did control the strip is flawed. Hamas remained the government of the strip, directed activities of Hamas forces and life and never relinquished power. Nor was it Israel's goal to remove Hamas or to remain and reoccupy the region. Israel also was not able to merely waltz in to Gaza, but was forced to fight its way into the strip and its forces were at all times under the threat of violence. An occupier would not need its forces to fight its way into a territory over which it exercised effective control.

The report also suggests the strip is occupied because the international community thinks it is, and in so asserting, looks to UNSC resolution 1860 (2009) in which the following line appears: “Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state..." That the Gaza strip and the West Bank form an integral part and will both be part of a future Palestinian state is not a point of contention, but this does not mean that just because the two create a whole occupation of one means occupation of the other. It sounds here that the commission is making a highly technical and flawed argument that since the west bank is occupied, then so is Gaza.

The argument of Israeli occupation of Gaza is flimsy at best. The same is true of arguments that follow from this flimsy premise.

Israel is gearing up for a diplomatic campaign to counter the report so no doubt the Israeli foreign ministry and Public Diplomacy will be in high gear for the next while. What they say will be interesting to watch. My thoughts on this matter will be further elaborated and developed in the days to come. I note, however, that i do not wish for this report to distract from attention to efforts that are ongoing to jumpstart peace talks. It is calamitous that the ugly shadow of a highly critique-able report is being cast over efforts to move towards a day when such reports will be a relic of the "bad old days."

Peace Buzz

2009-09-14T00:12:00.006-04:00

There's quite a bit of activity taking place, a scramble of sorts, to jump start Palestinian Israeli peace talks by the end of September. Between this weekend and this coming Wednesday alone, Netanyahu has met with Mubarak and will meet with Mitchell who has met with Peres and will meet with Abbas who is to be pressured by all of the above to agree to peace talks.

Prior to the Netanyahu-Mubarak meeting (which took place between the late afternoon and a fast-breaking Ramadan dinner before Netanyahu headed home) speculation was that talks would focus on a settlement freeze, the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states and the Iranian threat. There were also expected, according to media sources, to be discussions relating to weapons smuggling into Gaza and a general re-starting of peace talks.

Netanyahu did not bring any media with him, however, and so the actual content of discussions is unclear. Many speculate that the real agenda topping item was a deal to free Gilad Schalit. This is because many note that Hamas leaders were in Egypt just prior to Netanyahu's visit. Some even suggested that peace talks were probably not raised at all during the meeting. This is a proposition that may be supported by noting the duration of the meeting, it's lack of fanfare and the very general statements issued afterwards relating to cooperation between all parties and Netanyahu's comments prior to the meeting that the visit may help bridge diplomatic gaps. Moreover, Netanyahu was also supposed to meet with Omar Suleiman in Egypt, who has been Egypt's point man on negotiations for Schalit's release.

This may even be a hint that Netanyahu is willing to go farther for Schalit than a prisoner exchange. Perhaps what he's saying here is that bold steps are needed and perhaps Israel will agree to speak more directly with Hamas in exchange for Schalit's return. This would be truly shocking, however, as it flies in the face of Israeli and Netanyahu doctrine for refusing to accord Hamas any legitimacy.

Meanwhile, Peres' meeting with Mitchell seems to have accomplished little with Mitchell wishing Peres well after being released from hospital following a fainting spell, Peres being pressured by Mitchell to stop settlements and Mitchell being assured by Peres that despite media hype and small disagreements, Israel is 100% on-board with Obama's goals for peace. All of which sounds like a fairly ho-hum meeting with little new or significant take-away. Talks between Netanyahu and Mitchell may be more substantive with the parameters of a renewed series of peace talks being discussed.

Strangely, as almost all parties seem to be scrambling to ensure that Israel and the Palestinians meet for talks, the PA and the EU seem to be implying not only that talks will take place, but that they'll take place with the goal of setting up a Palestinian state within two years, as per the PA PM Fayyad's plan. The hope is that the setting up of agreed borders in the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem) will be the basis upon which a new state may be founded.

Much remains to be seen, especially how Abbas responds to Mitchell, but it's hard to imagine how the talk of peace could be a bad thing.

The Settlement Illusion

2009-09-13T14:45:00.007-04:00

There has been harsh criticism leveled at Israel for recently approving new settlements in the West Bank.

455 new housing units have been approved in various West Bank settlements prompting even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, speaking though his spokesman, to condemn the settlements as contrary to international law and the roadmap.

Nonetheless, the housing units have been approved, supposedly with the full knowledge of the US government and the US middle east peace envoy, and in addition to these housing units the Israeli Education Minister has recently promised to continue building schools in the settlements. All this has provoked comments from the PA that US credibility is at stake for their inability to force the Israeli government to stop construction.

Meanwhile, Egyptian officials noted that--in what would seem to be in spite of US efforts--some Arab states would be inclined to normalization with Israel in exchange for a settlement freeze, but that a settlement freeze is not equal to full normalization of relations.

Amidst all this concern over the approval of new housing units, it seems that the units are not new at all. According to Ha'Aretz, most of these housing units already exist or are being constructed. That's not to say that all the condemnation is much ado about nothing, but it's much ado about something that has happened as long ago as 1999. The facts that these permits may have created already exist and have for years.

That this announcement was made about all these housing units being built, when internationally such an announcement is unhelpful and the facts already exist seems to indicate that the announcement was a domestic political move. The current Israeli government is likely merely appealing to the settler constituency by demonstrating that they are willing to help the settlers, despite the reality that nothing new has really been given.

It also exposes some interesting points about the value of settlements as a bargaining chip. It is true that the settlements are part of the road map and ought to be stopped. Nonetheless, the current Israeli government seems to be using a settlement freeze as a commodity to offer in negotiations. The Egyptian comments that a settlement freeze is not the same as normalization of relations but only an inclination towards such normalization will no doubt make the Israeli government somewhat less inclined to offer the freeze when all they may get for it is a possible change in attitude from certain, unnamed Arab states. Netanyahu is being asked to make a very difficult political decision in exchange for a possible intangible.

Following from this point is the question of US credibility in the region. If the US can be said to lose credibility if Israel doesn't freeze settlements, surely it also loses credibility if Arab states are not willing to normalize relations. The reality is that the US can apply pressure to foreign states, but it does not control the government of foreign states, neither Israeli nor Arab. Indeed the proposition that the US ought to be able to force Israel to do or not do something implies that Israel is somehow a colony of the US or under control of the US government, which is simply not true. It would also be a dangerous proposition to reinforce in the Arab world which sees Israel as illegitimate, and the impression that it is not sovereign, serves only to feed this perception.

I Should Have Been an Archeologist

2009-09-11T08:06:00.003-04:00

...Because I find stories like this so interesting. I can't help but let my imagination wander and picture the actual people these artifacts belong to, what their lives were like, what they looked like, what they talked about, etc.
Fascinating!

Counting the Gaza Dead

2009-09-10T00:35:00.004-04:00

The numbers of Gazans killed during Operation Cast Lead is not certain. What's even less certain is what percentage of the people killed were "legitimate targets."

The Israeli Human Rights group, B'Tselem, has produced a report in which they claim their thorough research has demonstrated that 1,387 Gazans were killed during Cast Lead and that of those 773 "did not take part in hostilities."

As an indication of just how varied these numbers are, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) suggests 1,419 Gazans were killed in Cast Lead with 1,167 "non-combatants" which includes "...civilians and civil police officers who were not involved in hostilities."

On the other hand, this report from the International Institute for Counter Terrorism finds that at least 564 casualties from Cast Lead were "...casualties affiliated with the organization or one of its units, or who bear a title identifying them as Hamas casualties..." (emphasis in original) but does not take on the question of how many casualties there were in total. Similarly some blogs, like this one, have been doing some of their own research--which though it may be less credible, is not necessarily wrong--that concluded there were "...656 legitimate targets..." amongst the casualties.

The IDF, which has its own statistics, did not issue a response to any of these reports.

This seems to beg two questions, first, what is a "legitimate target" and second, who has their numbers right?

B'Teslem explains that their standards for what a legitimate target was summarized as follows from a Red Cross study of the question:

"1. Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are
legitimate objects of attack, even if at the moment of attack they are not
taking a direct part in the hostilities. This category includes persons who are involved on an ongoing basis in the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before he or she carries out a hostile act. On the other hand, persons who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities maintain their status as civilians and are not legitimate objects of attack. Thus, recruiters, financiers and propagandists may contribute to the general war effort, but as long as they do not directly participate in hostilities, they are not a legitimate object of attack.
2. Persons who do not fulfill a “continuous combat function” but take a direct part in hostilities (for example, on their way to fir [sic] a rocket, during the firing of the rocket, and on the way back)."

The definition excludes from the list of legitimate targets those involved in political activities or support activities. Of all the statistics cited above, the B'Tselem report seems to be the only one to clearly lay out the standards it used to determine who was a combatant and who was a non-combatant.

Entire books have been written on this question and so it cannot be treated fairly here, but suffice to say that the Red Cross definition sounds reasonable for defining those who are directly involved in hostilities, but it does not treat the question of who is a legitimate target. Certainly, anyone involved in hostilities would be a legitimate target, but what of the political leadership of a group like Hamas? It could be argued that they commanded combat acts. The definition also contains ambiguities, suggesting that financiers are not combatants, but if the preparation for an attack requires fundraising, then it seems financiers actually fall into a grey zone.

Legitimate target, therefore, remains a term subject to an almost case by case definition. As explained here by a former IDF lawyer, in Cast Lead, Israel decided that the threat against it was such that the entire infrastructure behind the threat was a legitimate target, and so it broadened the definition of legitimate target beyond the Red Cross definition of those directly involved in hostilities.

As for which statistics to trust, it seems that with such wide variations and regular sniping--one side against the credibility of the other's numbers--the exact figure may never be agreed upon. In reading the reports (or summaries, as the case may be), however, it seems that B'Tselem offers the most balanced presentation of its statistics, noting significantly that just because more civilians were killed, does not imply a violation of international law. This is a crucial point that PCHR does not seem to consider in its report which is difficult to consider seriously based on the terminology it employs alone (IDF becomes IOF--Israeli Occupation Forces, and Hamas is the "resistance" in PCHR reports.)

This being said, despite what seems to be prima facie superior credibility for B'Tselem (due in no small part to the thorough work they appear to have carried out and the documentation they claim to have), important legal questions remain about whether it is right to include an individual amongst the civilian casualties or illegitimate targets merely because they did not participate in hostilities.

Goofin' Around

2009-09-09T21:09:00.001-04:00

I made some minor changes to the blog. They may be so minor that frequent readers wouldn't even notice, but if you do have an opinion on the look or feel of the blog, please let me know.

Eisenhower's Prophecy

2009-09-09T01:40:00.004-04:00

Though details remain sparse, an interesting new group is appearing in the Israeli "peace" landscape.

A group called "blue and white peace" (no link to any website available) is reportedly being started by what both the Jpost and YNet refer to as a group of Israeli leftists with the goal not of supporting Netanyahu, but of reminding him that the public is behind him in efforts to make peace.

Many of the people involved have solid credentials either from the Israeli security services (including the IDF) or the political/diplomatic world or in working towards peace or some combination of the above. Their goal is to use their credentials to rally public support behind the plan outlined by Netanyahu in his earlier foreign policy speech and around the idea of the creation of a Palestinian state.

Some of the people involved in "Blue and White Peace" are already involved in groups like this one (site in Hebrew only) called the "People's Voice", which in a nutshell tries to get Israelis to sign on to a petition advocating a demilitarized Palestinian state with the right of return of Palestinian refugees to that state and some sort of sharing arrangement for Jerusalem.

The idea behind "People's Voice" and "Blue and White Peace" is to show Netanyahu that the public is behind him, to show that his efforts are not the result of yielding to pressure for an outside source, but home-grown, and to convince him that he has the political capital to make the difficult decisions.

The challenges faced by Netanyahu are well illustrated in this somewhat unrelated article where an IDF general explains the paralysis the Israeli parliamentary system can cause. The point is, that Netanyahu may choose to act, or not act based on fears that his government could be brought down by a political misstep not supported by the public. This new group being created is intended to show him, forcefully, that the public is behind him.

Perhaps even more valuable, however, would be efforts to convince other parties in the Knesset that to stand in the way of Netanyahu in his efforts to make peace would have disastrous electoral consequences for them. A strong show of support for peace by the Israeli public, and not just by people who may be "expected" to stand for a two state solution (Labour, for example) but also those who may normally vote Likud or for other right leaning parties is what's needed to create the political will to move forward.

Given relatively recent polling of Israelis and the findings that nearly 60% of them support a two state solution, perhaps "Blue and White Peace" will not have that much work cut out for them, but the goal is noble and reminiscent of the words of former US president Eisenhower: "...I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."

MIA Redemption

2009-09-07T13:30:00.003-04:00

In the wake of talk of releasing Gilad Schalit and the cautious optimism that he may be home soon, I came across a story I had never heard before.

The story is about an Israeli soldier named Guy Hever who in 1997 vanished from his base in the Golan Heights without a trace. A true mystery, not a sign of him was found, except for the dog tags of a Syrian soldier, now in the possession of his family.

One hypothesis put forward was that Guy left his base after fighting with his officer and fell or jumped off a cliff in the Golan. The area has been thoroughly searched, however, and not a trace has been found.

In 2007, a Syrian group claimed to be holding Guy, and wanted to exchange him. Apparently, upon further investigation, this claim was found to have no merit.

Israel has recently ramped up diplomatic efforts to find Guy and an organization in Israel has offered $US10 million for any information relating to his whereabouts or to the whereabouts of any of the other missing Israeli soldiers.

When a soldier is listed as missing in combat, sometimes it's because they have literally been vaporized, but a bomb, a shell or some other weapon and that nothing remains of them. This is different, because Guy was not in combat when he went missing. It is very possible that the soldier died in an accident, commit suicide or was even prey to domestic crime in Israel, though these scenarios seem unlikely given the thorough searches that have taken place.

It's possible that the soldier went AWOL and is maybe hiding somewhere now, but again, unlikely that he would not have contacted his family and that nobody would have recognized him.

Maybe he is in Syria then. What's difficult to explain is why would Syria hold him, and not admit he's being held? What is there to gain from this? Why wouldn't they say clearly that the have this soldier in their custody? This is part of the mystery. One answer may be that they're waiting for the time to be right. Perhaps they are waiting until negotiations between Israel and Syria have reached an impasse and then the allure of redeeming Guy Hever will be presented to Israel to break an impasse in Syria's favour. It's hard to know.

In all cases, while it must be difficult to know that a loved one is a prisoner, or in a POW camp, or even killed, it must be infinitely harder for a family to not have any idea at all.

Swedish Goose, Spanish Gander

2009-09-05T18:50:00.004-04:00

When a Swedish paper published highly dubious, unsubstantiated claims about the IDF stealing organs from Palestinians, Israel asked that the Swedish government condemn the story for what it was, a blood libel. The Swedish government refused citing the high value Sweden places on the freedom of the press.

Contrast this with Spain. Recently a Spanish newspaper published an interview with a known Holocaust denier, a man who spent time in an Austrian prison for Holocaust denial, where denying the Holocaust is a crime. In response, the Spanish foreign minister himself issued a condemnation of the interview "...while maintaining the most absolute respect for freedom of expression..."

Why is such a condemnation possible in Spain, but not in Sweden?

To Sweden's credit (though it does not absolve them of silence in the face of blood libels printed in their newspapers) the Swedish government will be pushing the EU to combat antisemetism.