You want moderation? Not here

Muslim and Jewish religious leaders are competing to heat up their followers in defense of incompatible rights to the Temple Mount/Haram e-Sharif. And Ha'aretz is marking the 14th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination with a front page story revealing that his late widow, Leah, said that Binyamin Netanyahu was corrupt.
 
Should we comment first on the madness of religion, or the madness of journalism?
 
On religion and the Temple Mount/Haram e-Sharif, one can go on forever parsing the history and the rights of Jews and Muslims. Did Moshe Dayan make a fatal mistake in 1967 when he ordered that the flag of Israel be removed from the Dome of the Rock and turned over the management of the whole site to Muslim religious authorities? Did that contribute to peace, or did it contribute to Muslim insistence on a monopoly of their rights and their denial of a historic Jewish presence, and provoke Jews to demand the right to pray on the Mount, erect a synagogue, or start construction of the Third Temple, which might entail the removal of Muslim holy sites?
 
The controversy is fascinating for its historical and political elements, but Jerusalemites content to live without solving religious mysteries are left with the effects of simmering conflict. Currently we are in the midst of what may be an escalation that, at the least, will tie up traffic in the area of the Old City.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (4)

A test of analytical skill or a political inquisition?

One of the reasons I chose to study political science more than 50 years ago was its eclectic character. Its concerns touch all of the social sciences, and it is hospitable to a range of perspectives.
 
I have worked with, and count among my friends individuals at numerous universities in several countries who have examined a variety of issues and express a range of views. Most of my own writing and teaching has been concerned with understanding how the political process works to determine who gets what. Description and understanding of citizen and official activities have been higher on my priorities than advocacy about what they should be doing.
 
It has been common to mock the notion of a "political science" that cannot be scientific, and is more political than scientific. Yet I continue to value work that employs intellectual tools in a systematic fashion to understand governing. Politics is at the heart of civilization. The essence of dealing with sensitive questions short of violence involves persuasion, voting, seeking allies and advantages in law and procedures, in the forums of government and campaigns for election.
 
Greatest among my recent pleasures is that one of my sons is pursuing graduate study in political science. Currently he is pondering options in Israel, Britain, and the United States.
 
We have talked about the politicization that has affected higher education, especially as it is tainted by the condemnation of Israelis without reference to what they think or what they have done. Until now, it has seemed that the malady is most severe at lesser institutions. Where it is worth the effort to obtain a decent education, one could hope that learning and analysis prevails over demands to comply with whatever is fashionable among political activists.
 
Yet the aspiring academic has sent me an e-mail headed by the question, "Why should I apply to such a place?" Required of all applicants for graduate study at the University of California, Berkeley is an answer to the following:

Please describe how your personal background informs your decision to pursue a graduate degree. Please include information on how you have overcome barriers to access higher education, evidence of how you have come to understand the barriers faced by others, evidence of your academic service to advance equitable access to higher education for women, racial minorities, and individuals from other groups that have been historically underrepresented in higher education, evidence of your research focusing on underserved populations or related issues of inequality, or evidence of your leadership among such groups."

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (1)

Jewish vitality

The latest sources of Jewish panic are claims that Israel has gone crazy in an alleged concern for its defense, and that the American Jewish Left is threatening what had been united support for Israel's essential concerns.
 
The Left is sickened by indications of bloodshed and destruction in Gaza. The Right is frightened by the emergence of the Leftist J Street and signs of its alignment with the White House. Either this new Left is provoking the White House to threaten Israel, or the White House is using the Jewish Left as leverage against Israel.
 
So what else is new?
 
Remember that Moses had his hands full with Hebrew rebels. Ezra struggled unsuccessfully with men attracted to shiksas (non-Jewish women). Josephus described full scale civil war. Since then Jews have produced, followed and been disappointed by no end of spiritual and political messiahs.
 
J Street is the American expression of what Israelis knew as Brit Shalom in the 1920s, and Peace Now from the 1970s onward.
 
If the greatest threat comes from an article in The Nation, then God's people can relax.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (3)

Political aggression and its consequences

Excerpts from an official United Nations summary of the Human Rights Council resolution on the Goldstone Report:

. . . while the Israeli Government sought to portray its operations as a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self defence, the Israeli plan had been directed, at least in part, at the people of Gaza as a whole ... the treatment of many civilians detained or killed while trying to surrender [is] one manifestation of the way in which the effective rules of engagement, standard operating procedures and instructions to the troops on the ground appeared to have been framed to create an environment in which due regard for civilian lives and basic human dignity was replaced with a disregard for basic international humanitarian law.... The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses had been the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces and not because those objects had presented a military threat ... other Israeli activities, particularly in Jerusalem, including ... limits to Palestinian access to properties and holy sites based on national origin, religion, sex, age or other grounds ... a grave violation of the Palestinian people's civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights ... Israeli violations of human rights in occupied East Jerusalem, particularly the confiscation of lands and properties, the demolishing of houses, the construction and expansion of settlements, the continuing construction of the separation wall built in part on land Israel occupied in the 1967 war, and the continuous digging and excavation works in and around Al-Aqsa mosque and its vicinity.... The Council demanded that Israel allow Palestinian citizens and worshippers unhindered access to their properties and religious sites in the occupied Palestinian territory, cease immediately all digging and excavations beneath and around the mosque, and refrain from any acts may endanger the structure or change the nature of Christian and Islamic holy sites."

What to do?

An obvious option is to persuade friendly and neutral governments that the resolution is one-sided, distorted or false, and a threat against Israel's elementary right to defend itself. Israel will work with its friends to assure that other United Nations forums, the courts and governments of individual countries do not respond to the Human Rights Council resolution with any concrete actions against Israel, its citizens, officials, or soldiers.

The most obvious falsehood is the claim that Israel is digging and excavating in, around, or beneath the Al-Aqsa mosque. The closest Israeli excavations are outside the large elevated area on which the mosque sits. The one-sided nature of the resolution is evident in that 10 out of 11 paragraphs deal with Israel's alleged violations, while only a "by the way" paragraph deals with allegations about Hamas:

(The Report) also found that Palestinian armed groups caused terror within Israel's civilian population through the launch of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel since April 2001, determining that both sides may thus have committed serious war crimes and possible crimes against humanity."

Some Israeli politicians are blaming the resolution on the lack of sufficient efforts by Israel to explain its actions. More and better explanation is their solution.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (8)

Tempest in a teapot

It's one of those times that excites Jews' well-developed paranoia.
 
A sizable majority of member states in the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva endorsed the Goldstone report, and sent it on the General Assembly and Security Council. Supporters will try to get an endorsement from the Security Council to indict Israel before the International Criminal Court.
 
The resolution not only accepted the Goldstone report on the Gaza Operation, but for good measure condemned Israel for human rights violations in the West Bank and Jerusalem, including the denial of religious rights. (During times of tension, Israel does not permit entry to the Temple Mount for men under an age when they are thought to be potential troublemakers.)
 
Not even Richard Goldstone was satisfied with the decision of the Human Rights Council, insofar as it did not condemn Hamas for its violations.
 
The delegates who voted for the endorsement came from Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia. Some of these we should discount as international good-for-nothings allowed to yell and scream, but not permitted by the rules of the game to do anything serious. Saudi Arabia is tolerated on account of its wealth, but also kept from serious damage by existing rules and norms.

Some speak in double talk, endorse what the Palestinians want, perhaps to keep some of their own people quiet, but deal with Israel. Jordan and Egypt are prominent in this group. China, India and Russia are important for Israel, but do what they have to in order to satisfy their other interests. None of them is on the verge of taking serious actions against Israel. All are more violent than Israel in dealing with those who threaten their own regimes.
 
Indonesia has no diplomatic relations with Israel, but we have encountered large groups of Indonesian Christians in our favorite Jerusalem Chinese restaurant. The Philippines enjoys the foreign exchange earned by thousands of its people working here as care givers for the aged and infirm.
 
Altogether, the votes in favor of endorsement are just part of the international background static. Not pleasant to the ears, but not likely to affect one's quality of life.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (12)

Nobel prizes and politics

Israel brought home another Nobel prize last week; Professor Ada Yonath shared this year's award for chemistry. Ha'aretz ran a front page chart showing the country in first place with respect to Nobel prizes won for science since 2000, in relation to population.
 
Israel is not quite in the league of Jews the world over, who account for over 20 percent of Nobels, but it does its part as a "poor cousin" whose universities and research institutes do not have the resources of those in North America or Europe.
 
Israelis take pride from their Nobel laureates, and also derive a little entertainment from them.
 
Not only is Prof. Yonath a renowned chemist, she's also staking a claim as an analyst of Israel's options in the fields of terror and international relations.

Obama's strength is also his weakness

Barack Obama won the most powerful office in the world, along the way promising widespread changes that magnified expectations. Now he has won the most prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. The Committee has cited him for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples."
 
Extraordinary efforts there have been. The question is whether they have excited expectations beyond capacity. I remember a teacher telling me that effort is fine, but it is accomplishment that pays the bills.

On the same day as the announcement of the Nobel, there appeared two articles in respected journals that lambasted him for naivete and hubris.
 
The Economist noted that on the less-than-hot-button issue of the Olympics, Obama put his reputation on the line with a high-profile trip to Copenhagen, along with his wife, only to see Rio get the nod over Chicago.
 
The journal also joined those noting that the war in Afghanistan is not going well. The president finds himself in squabbles not only involving Taliban and al Qaeda, but also his lead general, vice president, congressional democrats and republicans, not to mention talk show vipers.
 
On his primary domestic initiative, the administration-friendly Washington Post headlines a dirty fight between a health insurance company and a prominent hospital, each accusing the other of putting profit ahead of patient care. Sick people who thought themselves insured are in the middle, being threatened with bills they cannot pay. 
 
Will this help the president advance his initiative, or does it point to the fatal illness of profit-making firms too heavily involved in health care?
 
Commentators on one of Israel's most prominent news programs ridiculed the president for not getting the message about the Middle East. His point man has arrived on another trip to the region, seemingly seeking the same concessions that Israeli leaders have already rejected.
 
The major headline in Ha'aretz notes that the White House is "furious over Israeli incitement against President Barack Obama." Is this a threat meant to force Israel into changing its decision about a settlement freeze, with or without parallel concessions from the Arab side? The Nobel will add to the pressure. Must Jerusalem be behind Oslo in recognizing the President's genius?
 
Barack Obama is a fascinating individual. He is also sitting in the world's most important seat. Observers the world over risk a great deal if they fail to understand him. Yet the task is not easy.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (10)

Competing to establish Palestine? Or to kill it...

Recent expressions coming from the Palestinians reveal a chronic internal competition that does not auger well for their ability to get it together and reach statehood.
 
A week ago the Palestine National Authority, presumably under the direction of Mahmoud Abbas, withdrew its demand that the Goldstone Report move up from the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva to the Security Council in New York.
 
Leading Palestinian voices accused Abbas of caving into Israeli demands, and say he did it to get Israeli permission to open a second Palestinian cell phone service, in which they claim his son had a financial interest.
 
Abbas responded with a "who, me?" He insisted that he was acting on the advice of the United States rather than pressure from Israel, and that his son was not involved with the cell phone initiative.
 
Egyptian opposition politicians are calling Abbas a traitor to Palestine, and demanding that the Palestinian ambassador leave Cairo.
 
Leading Palestinian figures accuse Israel of taking more and more land in Jerusalem, say that Arabs are not investing enough in their neighborhoods, and recall that it was Benyamin Netanyahu who opened a provocative site for tourists that threatened Muslim landmarks during his previous term as prime minister in 1996.
 
Abbas has joined the chorus, led by Hamas and its Islamic allies, that Israeli extremists are behind the recent incidents of violence in Jerusalem. Palestinians must defend the sanctity of al Aqsa.
 
This is not the first time Palestinians have accused one another of not being sufficiently shrill, and fiddling with sacred causes. Ranking office holders and their relatives have been involved with selling cement meant for Palestinian purposes to Israelis for building apartments in the West Bank, and even for the awful security barrier.
 
What is most worrying is the inclination of religious and political leaders to goad one another for not being sufficiently extreme on issues of national importance.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (8)

The third intifada?

Are we seeing the onset of another intifada?
 
There have been several days of stone throwing, fire bombs, stabbings and mass demonstrations in and around the Old City and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. We have heard explosions, perhaps police tear gas or stun grenades, and helicopters circling over Isawiya, Wadi Joz and Shuafat.
 
One can hope this is nothing more than a momentary upsurge, which often occurs during Succot. This time of year, Jews mass at the Western Wall and march through both the western and eastern parts of the city. People like me stay at home, visit the Galilee, or go overseas.
 
It is also the time of the year for Jewish extremists to declare, once again, that they have a right to pray on the Temple Mount, and that the Third Temple must take the place of al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock. Their support in Israel is miniscule. Religious Jews ridicule them for overlooking rabbinical prohibitions concerned with the Temple Mount, the principal that only the Almighty can decree the establishment of a Temple, and the sin of provoking violence by extremism. The police do what they can to keep Jews from praying on the Temple Mount, however, it's not always possible to prevent an innocent looking tourist from whipping out a kippa and saying the Shema, or to anticipate the antics of enthusiastic Christian Zionists from overseas.
 
Even the boasts of the few Temple Mount activists are enough to provide Muslim extremists with the ammunition they use to incite their faithful. Clerics and politicians are preaching about the evil intents of the Jews. There are thousands of Palestinians, Israeli Muslims and Muslims elsewhere who believe them, and seem ready to march, or worse, in defense of Islam. One of my own insights into the culture came from an Arab student's comment some years ago, in the midst of the previous intifada. He said that many of his friends thought Jews were blowing up their own buses, to give them an excuse to kill Arabs.

What will happen?

We can hope that it passes with the end of Succot. If not, it would be wise for Palestinians and other Muslims to take another look at Gaza, and remember that Israel did something similar to the cities of the West Bank not too many years ago. Israel will not easily turn the IDF loose - it wouldn't look good on CNN or go down well with President Obama and his aides - but history shows that when pushed too far for too long, Israel will resort to military action.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (11)

Some puzzles for Israel and others

Should Israel be scorned because its former prime minister is said to have helped himself to financial favors during his service in increasingly important government offices on the way to the top? Or be praised for indicting him on charges of fraudulent receipt of goods, false registration of corporate documents, fraud, breach of trust and tax evasion? Should it be scorned because its former president is alleged to be a sexual predator, or praised for indicting him on charges of rape and sexual harassment?
 
Even those who praise Israel for cleaning house may criticize it for taking so long to do so. Investigations went on for years before the Attorney General handed down indictments, and the trials may last even longer. 

Justice, and the closely related legitimacy of criticism, are deeply rooted in Jewish doctrine. Israelis who do not study sacred texts acquire the traits somewhere else.
 
Should one doubt the presence of criticism, it is only necessary to look at the front page of the country's most distinguished newspaper the day after the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke to the United Nations General Assembly.
 
Praise for a speech carried live in Israeli and international media? Think again.