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.  

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

Making peace by statistics: Professor Maoz

A fascinating article by Professor Ze'ev Maoz in Yediot Ahronot today (in Hebrew), suggests Israel might be addicted to war. Apparently Maoz ran a statistical analysis of wars over the last couple of hundred years and found that the same states were involved in most of them. For obvious reasons the Germans, Italians and Japanese gave up warfare but the British, Russians and Americans still love it and among small states,the Turks, Greeks and Israelis were ranked highly along with Egypt, Iraq and Iran.  Israel came out as the most war-prone small country in the world since 1948.
Wow I thought, that's interesting.  But then I remembered that I attended a lecture by Maoz at Tel Aviv University around the year 2,000 and that he was running these statistics even then. In that lecture he had found that countries with nuclear weapons were far less likely to go to war: In other words Nukes had indirectly kept the peace. I remember thinking great so what do we do with that.  If I remember correctly he also found something else which was interesting:  Democracies almost never went to war with each other.
Maoz' statistics became very popular. Netanyahu gave a lecture at the University of Tel Aviv and with a broad smile told us that until the Arabs adopted democracy there would be no lasting peace in the Middle East.  At the time Arab democracy seemed highly unlikely and obviously Netanyahu liked that mantra.  I'm pretty sure he must have told it to his friend George Bush, and Bush bought into it big time.
One of the aims of the US invasion of Iraq was to forcibly install democracy and when Israel withdrew from Gaza, Bush insisted there had to be free and fare elections in the Palestinian territories, The Palestinians had free and fare elections and duly elected Hamas which rejected all peace agreements signed by the PLO. They have had no free elections since.
Bush installed democracy in Iraq, and the main result was that for the first time, Iraq's largest ethnic group,the Shi'ites, took over and they then forged an alliance with Iran.  Iraq has now managed two free elections and because no ethnic group has a full majority it is possible that some level of democracy will survive.
Maybe this contributed to the Arab spring and we have recently seen free elections in Egypt, bringing the Moslem Brotherhood to power.
 Maybe these elections are a good thing but so far they hardly seem to make peace with Israel more likely.
The Israeli governments PR  body has recently produced an ad about HIV.  It features a doctor explaining that statistically people who don't have sex don't catch Aids, therefore he says to avoid catching Aids, everyone should abstain from sex.  The ad then shows various people who never have sex, including a male mermaid, a TV star, a hysterical serial dater and a robot. The punchline is that if you do need to have sex, use a condom (in Hebrew).
Maoz statistics are a bit similar. Statistically the best way to prevent warfare is to distribute nuclear weapons to everyone.

Air-raid sirens in Tel Aviv

The recent mini-war with Gaza caused a few air-raid sirens in Tel Aviv. The first caught me and the kids in the playground next to our apartment block. It's a popular playground and it was very busy.
The siren went off and there was a second when everyone looked stunned and then everybody in the playground scattered - except me who stood there wondering how seriously I should take this thing.
As luck would have it, my partner was just returning from the shops at that moment. "Come on" she said, "We have 90 seconds to take cover". So we scooped up the girls and ran over to our block, pausing to collect a man and his crying daughter, who had taken cover behind the local Likud branch, a tiny building next to our building.  We told them to join us in our stairwell.

The stairwell turned out to be packed.  There were various people who happened to be passing along and most of our neighbors. Its an old building and we have no "security rooms" which are now built as standard on new Israeli buildings and are chemical weapon and missile proof.  Our building has a bomb shelter in the basement but its dank and unpleasant and we were advised to hang-out in the stairwell on one of the lower floors, so the whole building was hanging out together.

The man and his crying daughter turned out to be tourists from Morocco of all places.  After what seemed like 90 seconds we heard a very distinct "boom", which may have been the missile defense shield blowing up the incoming missile or the missile hitting the ground. When the siren ended we went up to our apartment.

There were a few sirens in Tel Aviv, fortunately they all occurred at convenient hours of the day, mostly when I was at work and not at night.

Last week my daughter Shani (who is three years old), turned to me and said "When will there be a siren again?" I told her that was it, we'd done.  "Oh" she said, "Well in that case I'll be the siren" and she proceeded to make a fair imitation of the siren.

What I'm reading

I'm trying a book diary... Feels like a primary school exercise.

May 2013 -

April 2013 - Righteous Victims by Benny Morris.  The most comprehensive account of the Middle East conflict, but I think it loses it a bit after Sadat comes to Jerusalem and the conclusion was a bit weak.


January 2013 - The Chosen Few - Eckstein and Botticini - An amazing book about Jewish demographics between the first century CE and the 15th century.  The authors argue that in the second century the Rabbinical leaders of the Jews took a decision to make literacy compulsory, even ordering that illiterate Jews be boycotted.  As a result there was a massive movement of Jews into Christianity (which made no such demands) while the structure of Jewish occupations switched to a focus on trade, manufacture, money lending and other occupations where literacy was an advantage. In particular there was a massive movement of Jews out of agriculture.
a lot of the material they use is based on the Cairo Geniza.


26 December 2012 - Five to Rule Them All - David Bosco - Few people seem aware that the UN Security Council pretty much runs the UN. I got his book because I felt I needed to better understand how it works, at first look I thought it was a mistake (I got it from Amazon) but its proving a real eye-opener.

9 December 2012 - The Most Human Human - Brian Christian - Nettie passed this on to me, apparently she got it following Fabiano's recomendation. A brilliantly original book and an excellent insight into making conversation by analyzing how computers fake human chat.

30 November 2012 - Bible and Sword - Barbara Tuchman - A re-read, I read this years ago. This time I particularly noticed the superb conclusion explaining why the British took over 'Palestine'. she thinks the Balfour Declaration was basically a justification for conquest. The British needed a strong justification for such a contested land and their real interest was protecting Suez and the route to India. Its interesting how many different explanations one gets for the Balfour declaration (anti-semitic influences,  desire for Jewish support, Weizmann's chemistry, evangelical influences).  I think the variety of explanations reflects how many different needs the declaration met and that juxtaposition is what led to it being made.

My IKEA kitchen hell

Tuesday 15/07/2008 go to IKEA and order an "Applad" off white kitchen and matching marble countertop at IKEA.  It takes 5 hours and is exhausting. Not all parts are available. The staff in the kitchen department say that parts will be kept back on our behalf when they arrive.  It costs about 13000 shekels for the kitchen 3000 for the countertop.  It is slightly cheaper then the cheapest supplier I have been able to find and is the only supplier who can promises almost immediate delivery.

Thursday 17/07/2008 IKEA deliver kitchen (in boxes). cost:350 shekels

Thursday 24/07/2008 an IKEA sub-contractor comes and measures the kitchen.

Friday   8/08/2008  the same IKEA sub-contractor comes and puts the kitchen together - except for missing parts and corrections.  He gives us a pile of bits to return and list of missing parts to request, most of which are doors: the kitchen has no doors.  The subcontractor costs 1600 shekels for two visits.  The idea is that he puts up what he can on the first visit and then after we collect the missing parts he will do the remainder on a second visit.  This is the first visit.

Monday 11/8/08  The staff in the IKEA kitchen department tell me that Applad off-white has been replaced and the colours have changed. They send me to the customer service department, where I queue for 45 minutes and then am told that customer services will call "next day".  I am given an incident number: 810697.  The whole visit takes about 4 hours.  I now know most of the little short-cuts through the store.

After a couple of days I break and call customer services who tell me to be patient and that they will respond on Sunday.

Sunday 17/8/2008 customer services finally call to say the problem is simple.  IKEA have replaced the catalogue numbers but there is no change to the colours, I just need to wait for the new numbers to enter the store.

I then periodically call customer services (about 15 minutes each time), initially the parts are being shipped, then they are in port, then they are waiting arrival in store...

Thursday 3/9/2008 all the required parts except for one door are in the store.  I figure best to get what I can before it leaves the store.

Friday 4/9/08 14:00 We go to the IKEA store and discover that Applad colours have indeed changed from off-white to white. After an angry visit to customer services (we don't queue)  we are told to select all new white Applad parts to replace the off-white Applad that are now out of service (Applad is the only type we like) and then return to customer services.  

We go to the kitchen department and order new white fronts for the kitchen. Some parts can't be replaced because they have marble counter-top stuck to them but most can. So we will have a few stripes of off-white amid the white kitchen.  It may not be too bad as the dish-washer is white.

After the reorder I spend 30 minutes queuing for customer services. Shift manager Y. Fadlon of customer services promises that they will come and remove the parts that need to be replaced.  I have now paid for some parts of the kitchen twice.    

Finally I go to collect the parts (each collection requires a two hour wait after payment) and am told that 3 white doors are not in the warehouse, although payment has been taken - a computer error?
I go back to customer services (no queuing this time) Y. Fadlon promises they will be shipped at IKEA's expense the moment they come in and that they will call on Sunday.  My money is not refunded.  Given incident number 810697 (the same as last time).

I know some more short-cuts through the store.  Possibly all of them.

Sunday 7/9/08.  No one calls. At 17:00 I break and call IKEA services.   I talk to Martha. She tells me that they will call me back in two days  I insist she talk to her managers. she tells me her managers are called C. Itelberg (customer service phones) and L. Tapuz (customer service face-to-face). After a delay she promises that a "senior customer service person" called Levana, who specializes in kitchens, will call me the next day.

Monday 8/9/08 16:15 Levana calls.  She tells me she will try to locate the missing parts (off white) in foreign stores. Tells me to get as much done as possible in the off-white - that is to have the sub-contractor do his second visit and finish off what he can. She says they will pay for extra visits to build the kitchen and tells me to ignore the new white version, says that they will collect it from me.

I am now managing three inventories:

a. the missing off-white parts from the kitchen
b. the missing white parts from the kitchen
c. the white parts I have paid for but which IKEA have not supplied.

This is starting to confuse me - even the IKEA computer system finds it hard to manage this.

I also have a large bundle of receipts that I am trying not to lose and a large stack of IKEA boxes in my spare room.  I decide it is time to photograph the kitchen. I am  considering calling my lawyer for advice but fear the added cost.  I no longer have any idea how much this kitchen has cost but estimate that I have reached the 20,000 shekels mark although refunds may be eventually materialize.

Women in combat and victorious armies: Feminism at Tel Aviv University

In 1999 I was studying for an MA in Political Science at Tel Aviv University and was required to attend a lecture by Professor Azar Gat, head of the Diplomacy and Security program. The lecture was on the advisability of allowing women to take combat roles in the Israeli Army. The Israeli army requires women to serve two years military service and women were not allowed to perform combat roles.
The US army had changed its position some years earlier and there was a beginning of a debate in Israel.
The lecture hall at the University was bursting and most of the senior lecturers were there, including the one or two women on the staff. Gat's program is a way of drawing in senior officers to the University because they get points and pay rises for getting further degrees. Presumably the army also pays for their studies along the way. There were a few uniformed women soldiers in the audience.
Gat's lecture was dull.  I remember feeling astonished that he could make so much fuss about giving a lecture when he really had nothing to say.  He made a single point and it wasn't very interesting: If an Israeli woman gets taken prisoner it will be a major burden ad the army will have to pay a high price to release her.
Its kind of a loser's argument: Lets assume it all fails and then discuss the consequence of that.
I remember seeing Dr. Erika Weinthal, who had taught me, walk out in disgust.
In the course of the  lecture, Gat gave examples of armies which had allowed women to take up combat roles: The Israeli army in 1948, the Red Army in the Second World War and Russian Civil War, the US army in Iraq, the Vietcong, the Eritrean liberation front, Mao's Army. What struck me about his examples was that they were all victorious armies.  So during the post-lecture questions I raised my hand and at some point he got to me and I asked him how he explained that all his examples of armies permitting women in combat were victorious armies.
I still remember the moment.  Gat was stunned.  There was a silence in the room and I noticed a couple of the women in uniform turning, approvingly, to get a good look at me.  He stammered something about higher levels of mobilization and then said, something along the lines of "You know what, why don't you come and study with me and we'll figure it out".
Then I made a typical mistake.  I stood on my principles.  "No", I told him.  "That's your job!", "You explain it to me."
With hindsight I probably threw away my best shot at a career in academia.
The way I remember it, from that point on the lecture was basically over.  Gat had very little to say and my question had simply blown his lecture away. Within a year of that lecture, the Israeli army decided to open combat positions to women. I am quite sure (though I have no proof) that my question at that lecture was a key factor in the decision.  When it comes to military decision making, nothing trumps victory.

Are the Crusades part of the history of Israel or the history of Palestine?

Every so often, someone who edits the History of Palestine on Wikipedia notices that there is an overlap problem:  A lot of the content on the History of Palestine also exists on the History of Israel, and so that person suggests, on the History of Palestine's discussion page, that the History of Israel should really only be about Israeli history since 1948 and the rest of the content deleted.

What then happens is a chorus of agreement on the History of Palestine page, so this good natured person goes to the discussion page on the History of Israel and announces this agreement. They then invite anyone to respond - on the History of Palestine's discussion page of course - before apparently planning to enact their plans.

The first time this happened I was perturbed. I looked at the History of Palestine and discovered it was really dull. It looked like a committee had written it (it has) and secondly you would find it difficult to realize that Jews had ever lived in "Palestine" from reading it.  It was just a catalog of empires that had ruled "Palestine".  

Then I checked number of hits http://stats.grok.se/en/201204/history%20of%20israel  and http://stats.grok.se/en/201204/history%20of%20palestine : the History of Israel gets 3 or 4 times as much traffic.
What worried me most was the thought that they might be right.  Perhaps the History of Israel was really just a propaganda page. I decided to consult an expert and sent an e-mail to Professor Benny Morris who is the Israeli historian I most admire.  I didn't really expect to get an answer, but it seemed worth a try.  To my surprise I got an answer within a few hours.  He had read the History of Israel and skimmed the History of Palestine and thought,as I did, that they totally underplayed the Jewish connection to Palestine/Israel.  He also thought that if they wanted to join the two pages they should call it The History of Eretz Israel - Palestine.  That brought a smile to my face.  I can only imagine the consternation that would cause them.  He told me there were errors in the page that would be remedied by reading his book, Righteous Victims, but agreed that the Jews didn't suddenly disappear in the first century.  He told me the introduction was a bit propagandish.   I'd publish his letter here, but it seems rude.  He didn't expect it to be published.

I told the History of Palestine people what he said and gave my opinion which is that there exist two parallel narratives related to Israel/Palestine, and that the best way to avoid conflict is for us each to tell our own version of the narrative. Otherwise we will just be at each others throat all the time.  To some extent we are.  The Israel-Palestine issue causes more conflict in Wikipedia then any other.

After that I avoided Wikipedia for about six months.  In the mean time various editors changed the History of Israel.  they completely re-wrote the introduction and entered details of what it was called at every stage. Under Moslem rule it was always a province of Syria and never called Palestine.  Some of what they did was messy but some of it was good.  At some point I noticed nobody was doing much so I went back in and  fixed things up.

Recently the good people of the History of Palestine came back again. This time I told them that I thought it was their page that should be deleted (and then I ordered Benny Morris's book). I said "Palestine" only existed under the 30 years of the British Mandate and it is now part of Israel. Countries called Israel have existed in the past (during the Jewish revolts against Rome they called the country Israel). I pointed out that Hebrew dates back to at least 1000 BC and developed in Palestine/Israel.  That Judaism is just as old and also developed locally.  I didn't say it but Islam and Arabic are the religion and language of invaders. All be it long ago.  They went away and so far haven't come back.

On Simchat Torah this year, it rained heavily for the first time in over six months. Hebrew has a special word for the first rain (Yoreh) and for the last rain (Malkosh), this was the first. Every year Jews read the five books of Moses in the Synagogues.  They finish at Simchat Torah, which is the final day of an eight day festival, hold a celebration and then start again.  In an article in Ha'Aretz, Israeli-Arab satirist Sayed Kashua quoted his father as saying that "it always rains at Sukkot".  I suddenly realized that the timing of Simchat Torah - to coincide with the first rains - is no accident.

By the way, in case you're wondering, The Crusaders called the country Outremer: overseas.

How I became one of world's most influential writers on Israeli history.

About five years ago I worked for a company who didn't have enough work for me. To fill in time I started editing Israeli history related items on Wikipedia.  At first I was editing on the Israel page but then I realized that the History of Israel had almost nothing on it. So I started filling the page in and soon found it quite addictive, ending up buying books so that I could learn more about different periods and tracing ancient Jewish history.

I found out some surprising things, for example that a massive Jewish presence continued for centuries after the destruction of the temple; that the 2000 year long Jewish dispersal was really more of a 1500 year dispersal and that during both the Jewish revolt and the later Bar Kochba revolt, the coins issued bore the title 'Israel'. I also discovered that Judean soldiers had saved the lives of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar when they were under siege in Alexandria.

Wikipedia is an incredibly powerful vehicle of education and a first stop for undergraduates and high school students looking for information.  A major reason for this is that Google will automatically rank the Wikipedia  as the top or one of the top results for any search topic. One of the reasons I know this is that I used to work for Google checking search results.

According to http://stats.grok.se/ the Israel page gets about 450,000 visits a month and is one of the 200 most visited pages in Wikipedia.
The History of Israel by way of contrast gets about 30,000 visits a month, not as much as Israel but still a pretty major readership.  Of course many of those probably take one look and then go somewhere else, but other Wikipedia editors also use it and material entered in one article sometimes ends up in other articles and, I suspect, in other languages.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia but it generally takes high-level subject knowledge, a knack for good writing and neutral descriptions as well as persistence to ensure that your edits are retained over time.  I have an MA in History from the University of London which focused on the Mandate of Palestine Middle Eastern history and the Holocaust.  I also have an MA in Political Science from Tel Aviv University. My BA in Politics from Sussex University generally focused on Africa.
I'm not that young either so I also have a long memory of Israeli history.

What all this means is that most of the material in the History of Israel is my work and that as one of the primary contributors to the page I am in effect one of the world's most influential writers on the History of Israel.  The downside is that I get no public recognition and that it is very time consuming.

To view a summary of my edits: http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Telaviv1&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

A list of my recent contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Telaviv1

My user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Telaviv1





  

Pulling back to the wall. Israel's next withdrawal?

In the early twentieth century, when France and Britain took over the Middle East, there were two types of Imperialism.  One was slash-and-burn imperialism which strove to take what could be taken from the region and disregarded "native" rights.  The other was a paternalistic imperialism which strove to help the natives and prepare them for independence. Ultimately both were part of the same phenomena, they both considered Europeans had a right to determine and control local affairs, just one did it in a nice way and the other did not.

There were similar trends in US controlled Iraq.  There were those who worked to extract as much oil as possible and get fat contracts for US companies and those that saw their mission as establishing Iraqi democracy and getting out of Iraq as soon as possible.

A similar situation exists now over Israeli control of the West-Bank.  There are the settler, slash-and-burn tacticians who want to take as much territory as they can and the paternalistic Israelis who argue that a Palestinian state is not viable and therefore the Palestinians should be integrated into Israel.  Ultimately both sides are arguing for the same end-result: continued Israeli control of the West-Bank without a withdrawal.

Both sides have an eventual objective  of a single state.  One wants a single state with Arabs and the others want it without. I might add that Hamas are also single state advocates, wanting a single state without Jews.  There is of course no possibility of attaining these ends without violence and the end result is highly unpredictable.  Given a choice between a joint state and a Jewish-only state most Israelis will elect to end the Arab presence so advocating a single joint state is more likely to create a Jewish only state.  On the other hand the only free elections ever held in the Palestinian territories resulted in a Hamas landslide, so clearly that is what most Palestinians want.

The best - and most viable - solution is an Israeli pull-back to the wall ("separation barrier"). That means uprooting all the settlements outside the wall and giving the Palestinians complete autonomy everywhere else. It is also a significant step towards a two state solution.  for years the international community has called on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank to some degree and the Camp David accords require that Israel grant the Palestinians autonomy.

All options are fraught with risks for the Israelis, but withdrawing to the wall has a lot of advantages. It leaves Israel in accord with the UN Security Council's requirements, the settlements outside the wall are a bone in the Palestinian's throat, and indefensible by Israel in the long term.  They require an extensive military presence that comes at the cost of preparations for the next war and creates internal divisions between left and right. The barrier has been built as an international border, it contains border crossings and is defensible.

The Palestinians have never actually made a choice between peace and war: they have only made a choice between war and occupation and that is not a genuinely free choice. They can only make a genuine choice for peace if the occupation (or most of it) ends first. By retaining territory Israel keeps a bargaining chip for a negotiated agreement - and all the key religious areas - but not enough territory to prevent the Palestinians from exercising a free decision over whether to sue for peace.

While a single state solution is unattainable without violence, a withdrawal under Israel's terms leaves Israel in the driving seat of the peace process at minimal social cost within Israel and significantly improves the situation of the Palestinians as the Middle East enters its new phase.

Just to reiterate, Israel withdrew from Sinai by 1979, from Southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005.
    

Why Israel is (almost) an Arab state

The modern Middle-East was largely created by the French and the British, who occupied most of it in the First World War and then drew the maps according to how they understood the local politics. The two communities which had contributed to their war effort were the Jews and the Arabs, and they were represented at the Treaty of Versaille, where the newly formed League of Nations rubber stamped the boundaries the British and French had agreed.

Major groups like the Kurds had no representation, had yet to develop a nationalist movement and were not players.

In the years that followed, a notion developed that the Middle East was an Arab area and anyone who spoke Arabic was deemed to be an Arab.  This generally worked well for Christians and Moslems but the status of Jews was unclear for a variety of reasons.

One well worn argument says that Jews aren't Arabs because they lived in the Middle East (outside Arabia) before the Arabs conquered it. But that just raises more problems, because most Christian communities also predate the Arabs but are still regarded as Arab. The Arabs of Arabia also predate the Arab conquest and if that is the case, can Arabic speakers outside Arabia really be regarded as Arabs, or are they just subjugated people who adopted the Arabic language? To put it differently, if Indians and Nigerians speak English, does that make them English?

In practice most of the Arab world's Jews left for Israel (for a variety of reasons) and don't consider themselves Arabs, so the issue is a marginal one. Self-identification is a key factor in national identity. If you think you're an Arab and you speak Arabic then you are. If you think you're an Israeli and don't want to be an Arab then you are not, but self-identification is also flexible and people's minds can change.

Altogether, some 35% of Israeli Jews originate from Arabic speaking countries and therefore, are as entitled to call themselves Arabs, as any Arab-American such as say, Edward Said. Their culture is Jewish but also Arab and common features can be discerned if you choose to make that comparison.

An additional 18% of Israelis are Palestinian-Arabs (and generally self-identify as such) and so if we add the two together than more than 50% of the population of Israel is Arab.

By way of contrast, the other European created regional state, Iraq, is 75% Arab, Algeria is about 75% Arab (although it is debatable how Arab the Berber population is), Egypt is 85-90% Arab (Coptic Christians, like Jews, are not defined as Arabs) and Syria is 90% Arab.

Finally there is an inter-marriage issue: about 1 in 4 Israeli marriages is between Jews of European origin and Jews of Middle-Eastern origins, and given time all Israelis will be descended from both ethnic groups.