About 45% of the world's Jews live in Israel. Another 40% live in the USA. Of course who is a Jew and how you count them is a bit unclear, for example people with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers (and there are quite a few of them) clearly have a connection to Judaism even if they are not officially Jewish. I know that in England official figures represent the number of Jews registered with a Synagogue but nobody in my family is remotely orthodox or registered with a Synagogue and yet here I am living in Israel.
One thing is clear: Since the Second World War, there has been a massive shift in Jewish demographics, and part of that shift has been a movement towards English speaking countries. Millions have left Arab, Moslem and East European countries and moved to Israel and the USA, Canada or Australia. Mainly of course, to the Israel and the USA. Of the top ten Jewish communities in the World, four are English speaking and the other is Israel.
Of the other significant communities: Argentina, Russia and France experience migration (mainly to the USA or Israel) and only Brazil and Germany experience growth but have only small populations.
Assuming current trends continue, by the end of the century nearly all the world's Jews will speak English or Hebrew and many, perhaps most, will speak both as Jews migrate between Israel and English speaking countries. Jews frequently migrate to Israel and then from Israel, they or their children move to the USA or vice versa.
The other significant change is the rapid irrelevance of the Ashkenazi-Sephardi divide. It used to be that if a Jew came from Europe s/he was Ashkenazi and if they came from the Middle East they were Sephardi. Nowadays most French Jews (half of Europe's Jews live in France) are "Sephardi" and originate from Algeria or Tunisia, while any Jew from the Middle East is an Israeli and could be anything. Only Haredi Jews still maintain the distinction and I suspect that even among them, distinctions may be starting to erode in Israel.
According to Meir Shitrit on the Ministry of Education's website, over 35% of Israeli marriages are between Sephardi and Ashkenazi partners while a Hebrew University study found that the percentage of children with mixed parentage increases by half a percent each year as children get younger, with 15 year olds currently at about 25% born or intermarriage. Incidentally, this means that over time all Israelis will be descended from both Holocaust survivors and from Jews who were evicted/escaped the Arab world. There are also sizeable groups such as "Bukharan"s (Uzbekistani and Kazakhstani Jews), Caucasians (eg from Armenia, Azerbaijan,Georgia etc.) and Bulgarians, Turks, Indians and Ethiopians who are neither Ashkenazi or Sephardi. Needless to say many live in the USA.
Among Haredi Jews change is much slower; Marriages are arranged and tend to remain within the different Hassidic "courts", but there is a slowly escalating seepage between the groups in Israel.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Academic boycotts of Jews and Israelis: Historical parallels
When one reviews Jewish history one occasionally finds disturbing parallels. Accusations that Zionists were dragging Britain and the USA to war against Iraq were common before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was astonised to find that Mosleyites (British Fascists) had used similar claims back in the Thirties.
The current push to discriminate against Israeli academics may seem new, but it has a history. It seems that academia is one of the first places to be affected by antisemitism.
Jews were first admitted to the Oxford colleges in the 1880's. In complete contrast to Britain, Russian universities introduced quotas for Jews in the 1880's, Jews were anyway banned from living in most of Russia. After the First World War, the new state of Hungary introduced quotas at its universities. In the USA growing Jewish enrollment at Ivy League universities led to tight quotas allowing only a very small number to attend.
In those days, faced with Pogroms and the like, troubles at universities were a minor irritation and not a major issue for Jews.
The German student union banned Jews from joining in 1921. A poll of students found that 75% supported the ban which applied to converts as well as practising Jews. Einstein left Germany in part because of the constant disturbances in his lectures, related to his Jewish origins. In Poland they had something called Ghetto Benches in the Thirties in which Jews, whose presence at the universities was subject to quotas, were also required to sit in seperate areas of the lecture halls.
There was a logic to restrictions on Jewish students, in that Jews deprived non-Jews of University places and later of middle-class jobs. This logic doesn't apply today because the numbers of Jews in Europe has greatly dropped, however it remains true of Israeli academics, many of whom seek employment abroad. While Israeli students probably bring more benefit then costs to British academics (by paying for courses), Israeli academics compete for jobs and article publication and so they have a direct interest in a boycott of Israelis.
Am I an Israeli academic? I have dual nationality and dual degrees. Do boycotts apply to Israeli Arabs or just to Jews? Where do you draw the lines? At present it seems like these boycotts are more expressions of emotion then policies but they cause us to assume that we face discrimination. Unoffical apartheid.
Back in the Nineties, I visited the World Trade Center in New York and climbed to the top. At the top of the building was a large metal pole: a lightning rod. Obviously such a tall building was a magnet for lightning, just as it was (we now know) for terrorism.
In a way, Zionism functions as a lightning rod for Anti-Semites. Israel, as the most prominent Jewish locale naturally attracts the ire of those who dislike Jews. That they follow the same lines as earlier antisemites is hardly a surprise: they are, afterall, directing their ire at Jews.
Is it because of discrimination against Palestinians in Israel? Discrimination exists in Europe too. It may well be that the Palestinians are the Casus belli - the excuse. If the issue is the West Bank, then the use of antisemitic practises may be popular but it is hardly likely to prove to Israelis the error of their ways.
When dealing with minorities, the difference between legimitate criticism and racism is very subtle; The likelihood that union memebers can exercise such judgement are close to nil and a boycott intended as an anti-racist measure will soon become antisemitic and cease to serve any function. The claim to be acting from anti-racist motives becomes particularly absurd when you consider the deeply antisemitic opinions voiced by many Hamas leaders.
Sometimes it is more important to be wise then to be right, ultimately the boycotters are neither wise nor right.
The current push to discriminate against Israeli academics may seem new, but it has a history. It seems that academia is one of the first places to be affected by antisemitism.
Jews were first admitted to the Oxford colleges in the 1880's. In complete contrast to Britain, Russian universities introduced quotas for Jews in the 1880's, Jews were anyway banned from living in most of Russia. After the First World War, the new state of Hungary introduced quotas at its universities. In the USA growing Jewish enrollment at Ivy League universities led to tight quotas allowing only a very small number to attend.
In those days, faced with Pogroms and the like, troubles at universities were a minor irritation and not a major issue for Jews.
The German student union banned Jews from joining in 1921. A poll of students found that 75% supported the ban which applied to converts as well as practising Jews. Einstein left Germany in part because of the constant disturbances in his lectures, related to his Jewish origins. In Poland they had something called Ghetto Benches in the Thirties in which Jews, whose presence at the universities was subject to quotas, were also required to sit in seperate areas of the lecture halls.
There was a logic to restrictions on Jewish students, in that Jews deprived non-Jews of University places and later of middle-class jobs. This logic doesn't apply today because the numbers of Jews in Europe has greatly dropped, however it remains true of Israeli academics, many of whom seek employment abroad. While Israeli students probably bring more benefit then costs to British academics (by paying for courses), Israeli academics compete for jobs and article publication and so they have a direct interest in a boycott of Israelis.
Am I an Israeli academic? I have dual nationality and dual degrees. Do boycotts apply to Israeli Arabs or just to Jews? Where do you draw the lines? At present it seems like these boycotts are more expressions of emotion then policies but they cause us to assume that we face discrimination. Unoffical apartheid.
Back in the Nineties, I visited the World Trade Center in New York and climbed to the top. At the top of the building was a large metal pole: a lightning rod. Obviously such a tall building was a magnet for lightning, just as it was (we now know) for terrorism.
In a way, Zionism functions as a lightning rod for Anti-Semites. Israel, as the most prominent Jewish locale naturally attracts the ire of those who dislike Jews. That they follow the same lines as earlier antisemites is hardly a surprise: they are, afterall, directing their ire at Jews.
Is it because of discrimination against Palestinians in Israel? Discrimination exists in Europe too. It may well be that the Palestinians are the Casus belli - the excuse. If the issue is the West Bank, then the use of antisemitic practises may be popular but it is hardly likely to prove to Israelis the error of their ways.
When dealing with minorities, the difference between legimitate criticism and racism is very subtle; The likelihood that union memebers can exercise such judgement are close to nil and a boycott intended as an anti-racist measure will soon become antisemitic and cease to serve any function. The claim to be acting from anti-racist motives becomes particularly absurd when you consider the deeply antisemitic opinions voiced by many Hamas leaders.
Sometimes it is more important to be wise then to be right, ultimately the boycotters are neither wise nor right.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
East is East and West is West in the history of Israel
Israeli roads generally run the length of the country, which is a neat North to South (or vice versa) or cross it West to East (or the reverse), which tends to be a lot more narrow. When you drive on the West-East roads signs appear telling you the direction you are driving in. At the top they say מזרח (East) in Hebrew, in the middle is a squiggle in Arabic (saying the same thing) and at the bottom it says in English "East".
If you're bilingual like me then the sign appears to say "East is East", rather like Kipling's Ballad of East and West:
Few countries epitomize Kiplings poem as wonderfully as Israel. It seems as though the Westernized Jews will never be able to attain peace with the Arabs and the Palestinians.
Kiplings adds that
If you're bilingual like me then the sign appears to say "East is East", rather like Kipling's Ballad of East and West:
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
Kiplings adds that
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth.
The problem with that though is that equality is only attained in conflict.
The division between East and West is very strong in both Western and Arab culture, which is why Kiplings poem is so attractive. Islam and Christianity have a bitter mutual history of conlifct, in Iberia where the Moslems were evicted, in the Balkans where Greece and Turkey exchanged populations and in the "Holy Land" where a bitter conflict was fought in the Middle Ages. History was always written seperately for Europe and for the Arab world, or should I say for Christendom and for the Islamic "world" and the two were regarded as seperate entities. According to Karl Marx they had different modes of production: Feudalism vs. Despotism.
Modern histories are part of the lore of the nation-state and they follow a territorial based methodology in which one takes the say, the French State and its people the French "nation" and shows its development over time. This approach makes sense for countries like England and France which have had a long existence
The territorial approach is problematic in Africa where countries are mostly the creations of European imperialism, although as time goes on - say over the next few centuries - this may become more relevant. There are a variety of ethnicities in Africa which are spread across several states and it might make more sense to trace the history of an ethnic group like the Tuaregs or the Akans then to write the history of Burkina Faso. The Middle-East is not as bad as Africa but also problematic. Iraq is essentially an amalgamation of three Ottoman provinces created by the British and it is questionable whether there shouls be a history of Iraq or of the Kurds or whether you should combine the two.
When you write a History of Israel, the Jews have both a territorial history and a supra-territorial history as a persecuted people. Even the Palestinians have crucial events in Lebanon and Jordan, like Karameh, Black September or Sabra and Shaltila, however Palestinian history is generally very recent while Jewish history goes back a long way and is very varied. Even if you just throw in the Pogroms and the Holocaust you are referring to the whole of Europe and the Russian Empire and require extensive background.
When you write a History of Israel, the Jews have both a territorial history and a supra-territorial history as a persecuted people. Even the Palestinians have crucial events in Lebanon and Jordan, like Karameh, Black September or Sabra and Shaltila, however Palestinian history is generally very recent while Jewish history goes back a long way and is very varied. Even if you just throw in the Pogroms and the Holocaust you are referring to the whole of Europe and the Russian Empire and require extensive background.
I am currently reading Benny Morris's History of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It is probably the best history of the conlict in existence but tends towards classic territorial-based history and that bothers me because it doesn't sufficently describe European Jewish persecution or the Jewish presence in the Arab world. I think a true History of Israel needs to combine the territorial approach with a "people" based approach and look at how the people formed, where their language originates, their beliefs and economy as well as the territorial formation. In the case of Israel, possibly more than any other country, that means devoting a lot of space to things that happened outside the state's territory and to merging Ashkenazi and Sephardi history. So in a true History of Israel, East and West must merge and intertwine.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Israel: Land of the post-apocalypse
I recently discovered that a work colleague's daughter has four passports. "Four?" I said, "Isn't that overdoing it a bit?". Truth be told my son has three, so I can hardly talk.
He explained that her grand-parents came from central Europe and had insisted that the child obtain every possible passport for which she was eligible. Her parent were Israelis who were in the USA when she was born, that accounted for two, the others were from a couple of central European countries.
"They live with an ever present sense of impending apocalypse" he said.
Truth is, many Israelis do, especially those whose family lived through the Holocaust. My father escaped Germany because his mother got him a forged Polish passport - he wasn't entitled to a passport from any country. Like Japanese coastal residents, there is a permanent sense that our safety could be transient, that the next tsunami is just a matter of time.
There are, I think, two versions of the impending apocalypse: The right-wing version says that the Iranians could use nuclear weapons against us and that Islamic fundamentalist regimes will surround and attack us. The left wing version says that the world will boycott us because we persecute and discriminate against the Palestinians. Both threats are real: We are healthy paranoiacs because people really are out to get us, however the reality is that the likelihood of either option is very small. Small, but not impossible, is a reality we have to live with.
Years ago at a dinner party in London, a friend asked me: "What does the Holocaust mean to you personally". We were drunk and young. Now, many years later, armed with an MA in History specializing in the Holocaust's aftermath, I realize how difficult and inappropriate that question was. I told him that my world was a post-apocalyptic world. In my world nuclear weapons had already been used and entire cities and towns had been wiped out. For years I pondered the inadequacy of my reply and wondered why I didn't just tell him about my father, which, I suppose, is what he wanted to hear.
And yet, now that I look back, I think it was a good answer. Many Jews, especially in Israel, live in a world in which there has already been an apocalypse and fear the next.
You might think that leaving Israel would solve the problem, but it doesn't, at best it gives you a respite. Instead of worrying about yourself you worry about your fellow Jews, and in the end a problem shared is a problem halved or 1 in 6 millionthed in this case (there are six million Jewish Israelis).
He explained that her grand-parents came from central Europe and had insisted that the child obtain every possible passport for which she was eligible. Her parent were Israelis who were in the USA when she was born, that accounted for two, the others were from a couple of central European countries.
"They live with an ever present sense of impending apocalypse" he said.
Truth is, many Israelis do, especially those whose family lived through the Holocaust. My father escaped Germany because his mother got him a forged Polish passport - he wasn't entitled to a passport from any country. Like Japanese coastal residents, there is a permanent sense that our safety could be transient, that the next tsunami is just a matter of time.
There are, I think, two versions of the impending apocalypse: The right-wing version says that the Iranians could use nuclear weapons against us and that Islamic fundamentalist regimes will surround and attack us. The left wing version says that the world will boycott us because we persecute and discriminate against the Palestinians. Both threats are real: We are healthy paranoiacs because people really are out to get us, however the reality is that the likelihood of either option is very small. Small, but not impossible, is a reality we have to live with.
Years ago at a dinner party in London, a friend asked me: "What does the Holocaust mean to you personally". We were drunk and young. Now, many years later, armed with an MA in History specializing in the Holocaust's aftermath, I realize how difficult and inappropriate that question was. I told him that my world was a post-apocalyptic world. In my world nuclear weapons had already been used and entire cities and towns had been wiped out. For years I pondered the inadequacy of my reply and wondered why I didn't just tell him about my father, which, I suppose, is what he wanted to hear.
And yet, now that I look back, I think it was a good answer. Many Jews, especially in Israel, live in a world in which there has already been an apocalypse and fear the next.
You might think that leaving Israel would solve the problem, but it doesn't, at best it gives you a respite. Instead of worrying about yourself you worry about your fellow Jews, and in the end a problem shared is a problem halved or 1 in 6 millionthed in this case (there are six million Jewish Israelis).
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Who is a refugee?
Who is a refugee? It might seem straight forward but it isn't.
If I lost my house in a financial crisis and moved abroad with nothing but a couple of suitcases, am I a refugee? I suppose you need to be persecuted because of your sexuality, politics or ethnicity but what does it mean to be persecuted?
Were Jews who left the USSR in the 'Seventies (and allowed to take only two suitcases) persecuted? If they were persecuted for being Zionists, couldn't they have chosen not to be Zionists?
Are refugees people who are forced to leave their countries? But if they are persecuted for being Zionists and then leave willingly to a country that adopts them, then are they still refugees? Were they refugees when they arrived?
What about the Palestinians, who having arrived as refugees, were persecuted by their host countries in order to force them to maintain their refugee status. Are they now refugees because of 1948 or because of their treatment by their Arab hosts?
Perhaps a refugee is someone who has formal UN documentation (and recognition). For example, Palestinian refugees carry UN documentation and are "recognized refugees". My father was also a recognized refugee. He arrived in England in 1939 with no citizenship and was at some point given UN refugee status which he kept until 1968, when he applied for British citizenship. By that time he had a house in Muswell Hill and a family, he hadn't been a refugee for years. So does the documentation count?
In contrast only very few of the Jews who migrated to Israel between 1948 and 1958, had refugee status and yet most of them were fleeing persecution in the Arab world and Eastern Europe. Were they refugees?
At the time, Israel didn't regard them as refugees because it gave them citizenship and undertook to house and feed them. To the Israelis they were coming home, but now 60 years later we look back and say they were refugees, this is especially true of the Jews who left the Arab world, many of whom left at very short notice (perhaps the length of time you have to plan your exit defines your refugee status). So many arrived that many lived in camps for years because Israel couldn't house them (does living in a camp make you a refugee?).
The issue is now raised because of the many Palestinians claiming refugee status. Unlike the Jews, the Palestinians have UN documentation and lack formal state citizenship, but many have lived in the same houses in the same countries for generations and their connection to "Palestine" is by now very tenuous.
The Jews are clearly no longer refugees, but Israel invested a great deal in caring for them at the time, and they left very valuable property behind so perhaps that is sufficient.
If I lost my house in a financial crisis and moved abroad with nothing but a couple of suitcases, am I a refugee? I suppose you need to be persecuted because of your sexuality, politics or ethnicity but what does it mean to be persecuted?
Were Jews who left the USSR in the 'Seventies (and allowed to take only two suitcases) persecuted? If they were persecuted for being Zionists, couldn't they have chosen not to be Zionists?
Are refugees people who are forced to leave their countries? But if they are persecuted for being Zionists and then leave willingly to a country that adopts them, then are they still refugees? Were they refugees when they arrived?
What about the Palestinians, who having arrived as refugees, were persecuted by their host countries in order to force them to maintain their refugee status. Are they now refugees because of 1948 or because of their treatment by their Arab hosts?
Perhaps a refugee is someone who has formal UN documentation (and recognition). For example, Palestinian refugees carry UN documentation and are "recognized refugees". My father was also a recognized refugee. He arrived in England in 1939 with no citizenship and was at some point given UN refugee status which he kept until 1968, when he applied for British citizenship. By that time he had a house in Muswell Hill and a family, he hadn't been a refugee for years. So does the documentation count?
In contrast only very few of the Jews who migrated to Israel between 1948 and 1958, had refugee status and yet most of them were fleeing persecution in the Arab world and Eastern Europe. Were they refugees?
At the time, Israel didn't regard them as refugees because it gave them citizenship and undertook to house and feed them. To the Israelis they were coming home, but now 60 years later we look back and say they were refugees, this is especially true of the Jews who left the Arab world, many of whom left at very short notice (perhaps the length of time you have to plan your exit defines your refugee status). So many arrived that many lived in camps for years because Israel couldn't house them (does living in a camp make you a refugee?).
The issue is now raised because of the many Palestinians claiming refugee status. Unlike the Jews, the Palestinians have UN documentation and lack formal state citizenship, but many have lived in the same houses in the same countries for generations and their connection to "Palestine" is by now very tenuous.
The Jews are clearly no longer refugees, but Israel invested a great deal in caring for them at the time, and they left very valuable property behind so perhaps that is sufficient.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Did Ben Zygier expose Israeli networks in Iran?
Do you remember how Iranian scientists kept getting murdered? Have you noticed that it has stopped? You may also recall how the Iranians announced that they had caught the networks and put people on trial. They were all Iranians, supposedly recruited by Mossad. The Iranians accused the Israelis and desperately kept trying to kill Israeli tourists around the world.
Time Magazine reported two days ago that the Western Spy agencies say the Iranian story about catching the assassin networks are reliable. The timing of the Time story, just as Ben Zygier was hitting the headlines strikes me as something which could be more than a coincidence.
Having said that, Zygier was arrested in 2010 and the last Israeli assassination was in January 2012. The Iranians claimed to have wrapped up the network in June 2012.
The Iranians aren't the only ones to have wrapped up some Israeli networks in recent years. Hezbollah has also had some successes, though reports I read suggested they did it by tracking rarely used cell phones.
Ha'aretz suggests this morning that Zygier talked too much and the Australian spy services got onto him. Someone in the Aussie service may have leaked information to the Iranians and Zygier might have damaged Israel indirectly. As long as we don't know what he was accused of, its hard to judge what damage he did and how justified his treatment may or may not have been.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Political party funding in Israel and how it encourages splinter groups
Israeli political parties are state funded. The way it works is that parties receive funds according to the number of seats they hold in the Knesset and are subject to legal restrictions on how much they can spend in election campaigns. They are allowed only limited non-state funding sources, which are small private contributions and membership dues and there is a ban on anonymous contributions, contributions by people who are ineligible to vote or public associations.
Any party which wins more than 1% of the vote is entitled to a refund of some of its election expenses (2% of the vote are required for a seat in the Knesset).
New parties that register for an election can use some financing sources that are not available to existing parties but are still subject to many of the restrictions. TV time is allocated on the basis of 25 minutes for every party running in the election + 6 additional minutes for every MK in the outgoing Knesset.
If a party with Knesset seats splits, the splinter group can take a proportion of the funding, particularly if the splinter group includes more than 5 members of Knesset. In general funding is calculated in a way that each five MKs gets you a higher level of funding.
Overall I think its a great system. In theory at least, it restricts the ability of big business (or trade unions) to control the parties and provides what would seem like a completely fair frame work. Israel has a vibrant democracy is which the system responds rapidly to voter shifts and new parties easily emerge, however there are serious problems.
One problem with this system is that it encourages party splintering. Once elected the MKs are not dependent on the party membership for future funding. They are now the source of the party's funding and if they choose to break away from the party to form a new party they can take their funding with them. Politicians with sufficient public following - Tzippi Livni being the prime example - can now elect to form a new party with a group of associates from other parties. Being a new party enables them to initially circumvent restrictions on political party funding. When Tzippi Livni failed to win the leadership election in Kadima she simply left the party with a group of followers and formed a new party in which she controlled the list. Positions 2 and 3 of her list of candidates for the elections were former leaders of the Labour party who had, like her, had lost their leadership elections (Amram Mitzna and Amir Peretz). It is probably no coincidence that soon after the political funding law was passed, Ariel Sharon left the Likud with a large number of Knesset members (including Livni) and picked up a large number of Labour MKs on the way.
A second problem is the emergence of parties with low levels of dependency on their membership. Many of the new parties have no or little national organizations and whatever organization they have is as often as not staffed by paid operators rather than volunteers. Meanwhile, the larger parties rely on membership votes to decide their list and MKs need to endure expensive, difficult to fund, campaigns with uncertain results. Obviously its easier just to leave the party and take your funding with you. Big business and trade unions can control the big parties by funding the individual leadership elections which are not state funded. Funding individuals may be a more effective path to political control then general party funding.
My view is that the law needs to be reformed so as to increase the importance of local party membership and discourage party splinter groups. Part of funding should be dependent on the existence of local branches with emphasis on representation in the peripherial areas. Groups which leave existing parties should not be able to take all the funding with them and sitting MKs who form new parties should face funding restrictions.
Source: http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/me00636.pdf
Any party which wins more than 1% of the vote is entitled to a refund of some of its election expenses (2% of the vote are required for a seat in the Knesset).
New parties that register for an election can use some financing sources that are not available to existing parties but are still subject to many of the restrictions. TV time is allocated on the basis of 25 minutes for every party running in the election + 6 additional minutes for every MK in the outgoing Knesset.
If a party with Knesset seats splits, the splinter group can take a proportion of the funding, particularly if the splinter group includes more than 5 members of Knesset. In general funding is calculated in a way that each five MKs gets you a higher level of funding.
Overall I think its a great system. In theory at least, it restricts the ability of big business (or trade unions) to control the parties and provides what would seem like a completely fair frame work. Israel has a vibrant democracy is which the system responds rapidly to voter shifts and new parties easily emerge, however there are serious problems.
One problem with this system is that it encourages party splintering. Once elected the MKs are not dependent on the party membership for future funding. They are now the source of the party's funding and if they choose to break away from the party to form a new party they can take their funding with them. Politicians with sufficient public following - Tzippi Livni being the prime example - can now elect to form a new party with a group of associates from other parties. Being a new party enables them to initially circumvent restrictions on political party funding. When Tzippi Livni failed to win the leadership election in Kadima she simply left the party with a group of followers and formed a new party in which she controlled the list. Positions 2 and 3 of her list of candidates for the elections were former leaders of the Labour party who had, like her, had lost their leadership elections (Amram Mitzna and Amir Peretz). It is probably no coincidence that soon after the political funding law was passed, Ariel Sharon left the Likud with a large number of Knesset members (including Livni) and picked up a large number of Labour MKs on the way.
A second problem is the emergence of parties with low levels of dependency on their membership. Many of the new parties have no or little national organizations and whatever organization they have is as often as not staffed by paid operators rather than volunteers. Meanwhile, the larger parties rely on membership votes to decide their list and MKs need to endure expensive, difficult to fund, campaigns with uncertain results. Obviously its easier just to leave the party and take your funding with you. Big business and trade unions can control the big parties by funding the individual leadership elections which are not state funded. Funding individuals may be a more effective path to political control then general party funding.
My view is that the law needs to be reformed so as to increase the importance of local party membership and discourage party splinter groups. Part of funding should be dependent on the existence of local branches with emphasis on representation in the peripherial areas. Groups which leave existing parties should not be able to take all the funding with them and sitting MKs who form new parties should face funding restrictions.
Source: http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/me00636.pdf
Saturday, February 2, 2013
I voted Labour in Israel's 2013 election and felt like a fool.
I voted Labour in the last Israeli elections, but I did so with a certain amount of dread. In 2009 I voted Labour and half the 13 members of Knesset subsequently decamped to a new party and sat in Netanyahu's government. You might say that half my ballot went to the Likud and half to Labour. Not what I intended.
Most outrageously, the group that left included the party chairman, Ehud Barak.
I no longer remember who I voted for in 2006, but it may well have been Labour. The party took 19 seats, led by the Sephardi union organizer Amir Peretz, who inspired hope that Labour would focus on social issues. Unfortunately he was offered the Defence Ministry by Olmert and his greed for power led him to take an office for which he was manifestly unsuited, followed by entry into a war for which he lacked appropriate experience. That and a photo of him looking through binoculars which still had their lens covers on, finished his career. Peretz also chose to leave the party, joining (former Kadimah leader) Tzippi Livni's new party, which got six seats.
Peretz won the leadership after a contest with temporary party leader Shimon Peres, who is notorious in Israel for losing elections which he should have won. Following his defeat, Peres left the party, along with a number of other MKs, joining Ariel Sharon's new party Kadima.
In 2003 I was out of the country. Labour was led by Amram Mitzna who won 19 seats. Mitzna also joined Livni's party last year. So two former Labour leaders are now in the Knesset with Livni.
Before Mitzna, the party leader was Binyamin Ben Eliezer, who is still in the party. In other words, none of the last four leaders of the labour party (before the current leader, Shelli Yehimovitz) are still members of the party. Not only that, if you voted labour in the last 3 elections, some percentage of the MKs you helped elect ended up in different, more right-wing parties.
Under the circumstances I felt like a chump voting for Labour.
Most outrageously, the group that left included the party chairman, Ehud Barak.
I no longer remember who I voted for in 2006, but it may well have been Labour. The party took 19 seats, led by the Sephardi union organizer Amir Peretz, who inspired hope that Labour would focus on social issues. Unfortunately he was offered the Defence Ministry by Olmert and his greed for power led him to take an office for which he was manifestly unsuited, followed by entry into a war for which he lacked appropriate experience. That and a photo of him looking through binoculars which still had their lens covers on, finished his career. Peretz also chose to leave the party, joining (former Kadimah leader) Tzippi Livni's new party, which got six seats.
Peretz won the leadership after a contest with temporary party leader Shimon Peres, who is notorious in Israel for losing elections which he should have won. Following his defeat, Peres left the party, along with a number of other MKs, joining Ariel Sharon's new party Kadima.
In 2003 I was out of the country. Labour was led by Amram Mitzna who won 19 seats. Mitzna also joined Livni's party last year. So two former Labour leaders are now in the Knesset with Livni.
Before Mitzna, the party leader was Binyamin Ben Eliezer, who is still in the party. In other words, none of the last four leaders of the labour party (before the current leader, Shelli Yehimovitz) are still members of the party. Not only that, if you voted labour in the last 3 elections, some percentage of the MKs you helped elect ended up in different, more right-wing parties.
Under the circumstances I felt like a chump voting for Labour.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
My dove's interpretation by Meir Ariel, translated into English
My dove’s interpretation / מדרש יונתי
Words and Music: Meir Ariel / מאיר אריאל
My translation: To hear the music go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59MQW5M7DKw
Source for the Hebrew text: http://shironet.mako.co.il/artist?type=lyrics&lang=1&prfid=605&wrkid=2042
Source for the Hebrew text: http://shironet.mako.co.il/artist?type=lyrics&lang=1&prfid=605&wrkid=2042
Ask the heart of Jerusalem
Ask how she feels -
Stones in the heart of Jerusalem
The market square reels.
Wrapped in lies and injustice
Laboring on the wall
But through a veil perceptible
Our city lies exposed to all.
Not pursuing justice
Does not want peace
for there is no peace without justice
- Just why did we come here?
- did we dream a dream?
- Is that day over?
My dove returns to the fissures
The hawk vibrates above -
And hidden steps ingest her
Opening winding mouths
It is the lands of the sea behind us
We are their passion.
It is the lands around us
We are their song
It is the same convoy
Facing the sea.
Followed by the King
Smeared in blood,
Wilderness, animals also –
They are all upon us.
How Jerusalem flirts
And dances to the masses-
Participates and undulates
Her hips hugged by the herds.
Question her ministers debates
Lacking height or might
In courtyards, just a match misplaced
And every courtyard walled high.
We have been in the oven,
Now in the frying pan.
Pumped with drunken honor,
- Crackling slightly,
- Almost burnt
- Sealing slowly.
Why so vigorously does chopping board
Scratch against knife?
Enough let the knife slumber -
Yes, drop the knife.
"Shmita" do you understand
That you run to take more land?
In suspected fraud, possible theft, murkily
Protected by the governor? Is this redemption? Dignity?
Like a thief of the Judean fellows?
And to whom will you sell when the land lies fallow?
Or will you convert that year?
And before whom will you proclaim innocence seventh by
seventh?
While the ground under you is enslaved?
Who likes this? Earth you take -
Redemption you do not give. Or maybe your fingertips
Very tight very very very very -
Trained to let go? Skilled at release?
Practiced at the drop?
Oh Mother Mother Earth
Oh Mother Earth.
Mother Earth is my mother,
Earth my earth
- Until I die!
For what Adam?
Do not stir and do not awaken
Unsought animosity
Once out they won't be shaken
Not by rabbi minister or luminary
Someone will charge upon us
As if waking from a delusion:
Erase us and our plunder
Sink us into their chasm
If only we saw your sights,
Heard your voice.
Truth and justice at your gates,
The beauty of you looks!
The fineness of your voice!
Favor of your lovers' eyes!
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Why the UN General Assembly could create Israel but can't create Palestine.
In 1947 the UN General Assembly voted to partition what was then the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. As a result Israel came into being. The Arabs rejected the decision and no Arab state was created.
In late 2012 the General Assembly voted that "Palestine" be granted non-member observer status. Why didn't they create a member state?
Basically the only body in the UN that can take any binding decisions is the Security Council and the five permanent members can veto any decisions they don't like. The other ten members are taken in turn from the various regions. As members of the council they can put things on the agenda for discussion.
In 2011 Lebanon was briefly chair of the council and proposed that the council accept the Palestinians as a state. The Security Council referred the issue to its membership committee for investigation and the membership committee came back with inconclusive results since the Palestinians failed to meet some of the conditions of the UN charter. The committee recommended an intermediate step of granting the Palestinians observer status by the General Assembly, which apparently is the most the General Assembly can do without Security Council backing. The issue was thus not presented to the Security Council, but maybe at a later date. The point of this decision was, I suppose, to prevent international conflict over the issue by deferring it.
Back in 1947, the Security Council decided it couldn't be bothered with the whole Palestine thing and handed the issue over to the General Assembly. That's why Israel was created by the General Assembly. The 1947 General Assembly decision called on the UN take various actions which the Security Council refused to take, so no one actually worked to implement the decision and the new state of Israel was forced to fight for its existence, it was eventually admitted to the UN in March 1949, following a Security Council decision:
"The Security Council, Having received and considered the application of
Israel for membership in the United Nations, Decides in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly, Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
Adopted at the 414th meeting by 9 votes to I (Egypt), with I abstention (United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)."
In those days, there were less council members and US television companies broadcast UN Security Council discussions live.
Had the Security Council decided in 2012, to accept the Palestinians into the UN, the USA would almost certainly have vetoed the decision. Vetoing decisions is embarrassing for the permanent members of the Security Council and implies they lack moral authority. That is really the most the Palestinians can aim for, but as it was no veto was required. While this is a bit of a failure for the Palestinians, the issue is still out there and has simply been deferred for the time being.
The Israeli press have widely quoted the Palestinians as saying they will use their new observer status to take issues to UN's International Court of Justice (at the Hague: homepage), however they may find that it makes awkward decisions for them too and even if it decides in their favor, all the court can do is make a recommendation to the Security Council on legal matters.
In late 2012 the General Assembly voted that "Palestine" be granted non-member observer status. Why didn't they create a member state?
Basically the only body in the UN that can take any binding decisions is the Security Council and the five permanent members can veto any decisions they don't like. The other ten members are taken in turn from the various regions. As members of the council they can put things on the agenda for discussion.
In 2011 Lebanon was briefly chair of the council and proposed that the council accept the Palestinians as a state. The Security Council referred the issue to its membership committee for investigation and the membership committee came back with inconclusive results since the Palestinians failed to meet some of the conditions of the UN charter. The committee recommended an intermediate step of granting the Palestinians observer status by the General Assembly, which apparently is the most the General Assembly can do without Security Council backing. The issue was thus not presented to the Security Council, but maybe at a later date. The point of this decision was, I suppose, to prevent international conflict over the issue by deferring it.
Back in 1947, the Security Council decided it couldn't be bothered with the whole Palestine thing and handed the issue over to the General Assembly. That's why Israel was created by the General Assembly. The 1947 General Assembly decision called on the UN take various actions which the Security Council refused to take, so no one actually worked to implement the decision and the new state of Israel was forced to fight for its existence, it was eventually admitted to the UN in March 1949, following a Security Council decision:
"The Security Council, Having received and considered the application of
Israel for membership in the United Nations, Decides in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly, Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
Adopted at the 414th meeting by 9 votes to I (Egypt), with I abstention (United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)."
In those days, there were less council members and US television companies broadcast UN Security Council discussions live.
Had the Security Council decided in 2012, to accept the Palestinians into the UN, the USA would almost certainly have vetoed the decision. Vetoing decisions is embarrassing for the permanent members of the Security Council and implies they lack moral authority. That is really the most the Palestinians can aim for, but as it was no veto was required. While this is a bit of a failure for the Palestinians, the issue is still out there and has simply been deferred for the time being.
The Israeli press have widely quoted the Palestinians as saying they will use their new observer status to take issues to UN's International Court of Justice (at the Hague: homepage), however they may find that it makes awkward decisions for them too and even if it decides in their favor, all the court can do is make a recommendation to the Security Council on legal matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)