Picking on Florentine

I walked along King George and Shenkin St. earlier this week desperately trying to find myself a costume that covers my whole behind and not just half of it. As I entered each store, begging for an adult size, I was consoled with the fact that on THIS Purim, I know where to go – Florentine. You can imagine how upset I was when I read on the net that the bars in the area could not reach an agreement with the police about the traditional party, and so, it was cancelled. Yay, Purim with family, I couldn’t be more excited…

Apparently, the traditional parties in Florentine are illegal, and the Tel Aviv municipality has a clear agenda against them because “there is no one to take responsibility for them”. Ok, so I understand, the bar owners do not want to take responsibility of 40,000 people (the number of people that partied on the streets of Florentine last Purim). What I don’t understand is why the T.A municipality would take responsibility for a different area? Rothschild Street enjoyed sponsoring and a budget, why not Florentine?

The traditional street parties in Florentine occur three times a year: New Years, Purim and Independence Day. When they cancelled the traditional “Sylvester” party in Florentine, commemorating the beginning of 2010, I was in such dismay. I couldn’t understand for the life of me what the big deal was.

On my mission to find out the conspiracy, I went out and asked questions. There is something fishy in Florentine, and no, it’s not the leftover hookers and crack heads from the late 90’s. It is not only the street parties that are being cancelled. The bars in Florentine are being showered with notices given to them by the T.A municipality on the basis of closing time, noise or having chairs outside of the bar.

The reasoning behind the tickets (430 shekels each) is that Florentine is classified as a “residential area”. The parties, and the noise from the clubs, disturb the peace. But here’s a question, do they not disturb the peace on Rothschild St.? Can’t the residents suck it up 3 times a year?

Ten years ago Florentine was the ghetto. Living in it, like I said before, were crack-whores and illegal immigrants. With the prices in real estate rising, many young people and artists have slowly moved into the area, making it hip and cool – much like what happened in Williamsburg, New York (and continues throughout Brooklyn).

The point is, that the neighborhood changed so drastically, including a mass change in inhabitants that I am fairly certain that there are not many people who lived in Florentine before it became cool. The new residents chose to live in a hip area, so they should bear the consequences or leave.

Because of these changes I doubt the “residential” excuse. The only reasoning behind picking on small businesses and making street parties (that have been occurring for years) “illegal”, is financial interest in the neighborhood. Real estate in Tel Aviv is hard to find. 10 years ago Florentine was dirt cheap and perfect for investment. Today Florentine is cool and land is expensive. So who has a vested interest in ruining a neighborhood, buying it for cheap and making it prime? I guess the T.A municipality does.

The Forgotten Art of Dialogue

This past week, I went to hell and back – ten times over. On February 12th at roughly 1:40am the world became a noticeably different place and a viral emptiness was violently thrown upon me – upon the world. On that night, the life of a great friend and outstanding individual – a brother – was suddenly taken from us. Avi Schaefer, a 21 year-old student at Brown University and a former Chayal Boded (Lone Soldier) in the Israeli Defense Forces was struck by a drunk driver while walking back to his dorm room. And although I know this tragedy is real, I still like to get lost dreaming that I will wake up and he will be here to enlighten me as he so often did.

As much as Avi was a warrior and leader on the battlefield, his greatest fight came with his mind and his relentless effort in trying to reestablish the nearly obsolete form of dialogue between Israeli’s and Palestinians to which we are accustomed. For the majority of us living in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, hope is something that has for the most part ceased to exist. After years of failed attempts to reconcile our precarious situation in which we find ourselves, it is nearly impossible to find that dimly lit aura that may be able to affect change in the status quo within the region. In an op-ed piece to his university’s newspaper, Schaefer eloquently tried to explain the situation in which we often find ourselves asking why try to stave of the virulent anti-Israel rhetoric that bombards us daily:

How do I convince you of [my desire for peace and dialogue], after I tell you that I volunteered to fight in the Israeli Defense Forces? If I said that I decided to go not because of hatred, but rather to work for peace, would you believe me? I went to the army so that my children will not have to — a dream I fear may not come true.

As he went on to say:

When both sides truly understand that Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live, a need for legitimate safety and a desire to envision a more peaceful future for their children, then there will be peace. Can we move past the nuances to work together? Can we understand each other in order to help both Israelis and Palestinians realize the other side’s story? If we at Brown cannot create a forum to understand each other, how can we ever assume that this will be created in the Middle East?

Schaefer’s commitment to establishing dialogue lead him to Brown professor Mark Jacobson and fellow student Sami Jarbawi - a Palestinian from the West Bank studying at Brown. Together, the two were designing a class based on the Israeli and Palestinian narrative. The goal of the class was to eventually foster dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians based on the empathy that could be garnered from understanding each other’s narrative(s) – each other’s pain and sorrow. Although Avi and Sami rarely saw eye to eye on the majority of issues, they were able to come together and respect each other’s varying opinions. One opinion however upon which they agreed was the need to understand “the other side”. This developing understanding between the two lead to a strong bond that was going to take them to Israel and the West Bank this summer in order to do research and make their voices heard. Avi always used to say that, “An enemy is someone whose story we have not yet heard.”

A good number of contributors to this blog, including myself, have immigrated to Israel with the hope of getting both Israeli and Palestinians to open their eyes and continue the necessary diplomatic track in establishing a future where our children can walk to school without sirens blaring and bombs falling. Many people may label us as blind optimists and not as rational individuals, but I refuse to believe that.

At a time when the situation in the Middle East looks bleaker with every passing moment, it becomes even more strenuous to dig for that glimmer of hope. But, as long as that dimly lit glimmer still shines, the ability to affect change is not far behind. And just as nearly 4,000 people across multiple continents were able to view Avi’s funeral via the internet, we saw that there were still those out there who believed in his vision to “seek peace and pursue it”. If a 21 year-old kid without a college degree was able to stand out with such diplomatic gestures, there is no excuse for the inanity of our leaders in failing to reach an agreement about our current state of affairs.

Avi dedicated his life to “seeking peace and pursuing it”; he truly was a Young Diplomat from whom we can all learn. With Avi’s passing, we all have the responsibility to strive a bit harder so that we can finally do away with this nonsense, hatred and misunderstanding.

This is to you Avi – we will fulfill your dream.

“Everybody dies, but not everyone truly lives” – Avi Schaefer, 1988-2010

Wanted: Vigilance Against Tyranny

Two recent developments published in newspapers this morning have spurred my ire-- as they should for every Israeli concerned with liberty and basic civil rights.  

First, a poll conducted by Tel Aviv University students and published in Yediot Achronot (most articles who make reference of this paper without fail make note that it is the widest-distributed, or most-sold newspaper in Israel, I shall refrain) found that "57% of Jews in Israel agree that in a case of an external conflict, human rights are less important than the security-national crisis".  This troubles me very greatly, not only because in this country "external conflict" is always just around the corner, but because there are a great number of MKs of various parties who would have absolutely no qualms about limiting, or outright eliminating, basic civil liberties.  They need not be named.  

Dear Israel: have you forgotten Benjamin Franklin's oft-quoted maxim, or did the decrepit school system simply not teach it: "Any society who would give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both". 

Second, a bill milling about the Knesset seeks to quell freedom of speech and assembly in our country.  As reported in the UAE newspaper The National:  

human-rights groups will have to satisfy a long list of new conditions. They include: registering as political bodies; submitting ID numbers and addresses for all activists; providing detailed accounts of all donations from overseas and the purposes to which they will be put; and declaring the support of foreign countries every time an activist makes a speech or the organisation stages an event.  Senior officials in NGOs that fail to meet the requirements face up to a year in jail.

This bill has been decried as a McCarthyist abrogation of basic liberties.  Freedom of speech and assembly-- critical components of Freedom of Conscience-- is the most crucial for the survival and success of a democratic state.  Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority".  Israelis should be equally aware that impingement on the right of the individual to assemble and express his views publicly without risk of repercussion is a large step towards curtailment of other freedoms.  

What good is having a national homeland if we can not "be a free nation in our land"?  Already treading on a treacherously slippery slope, Israelis now, more than ever, must be extra vigilant against opponents of freedom.  

Fresh Blood

Theseus was the mythical king of ancient Athens in its pre-Classical age.  Long before Socrates and Pericles, Themistocles and Thucydides, Theseus reigned as a benevolent and just king, the founder of the glory of Athens.  Before his ascension to the throne, the story goes, Athens was powerless.  Each year it payed a tribute to their Cretan overlords of young men and women, sacrificial victims to the Minotaur.  Theseus, raised by his mother without Athens, traveled to his father's realm, boarded one of the ships bound for Crete, slew the Minotaur, and returned home victorious to an awaiting throne.  
A critical element of the tale is that Theseus, though son of the king of Athens, was not indigenously Athenian.  He was born and raised outside Attica and its political intrigues.  Thus, when the young Theseus first arrived in Athens he was not bound by factional ties, the gossamer of nepotism, or the shackles of corruption.  He brought fresh blood and a new mindset to a long-stagnant system-- and succeeded in breaking the stalemate.
You must be asking yourself: what the hell does classical mythology have to do with modern Israeli politics?  Well, the purpose of these myths of yore was to impart a lesson as much as tell a story, the crux here being that political systems need to be rejuvenated once in a while.  
One of the many flaws with the current Israeli system (a single facet unfixed by the lack of constitutional law) is the absence of term limits for Members of Knesset (MKs).  Consequently, a large number of those currently sitting have been members of their respective parties for decades, and have been toeing the party line for just as long.  They are representative of a dated, aging population, and there is little fresh blood in the Israeli political arena.  
For instance, only 13% of the 120 MKs were born after the 1967 War; only 16 MKs are younger than 43 years of age.  Considering that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli population is under 35 years of age (chart at left), how can this aging cabal of party patricians adequately represent their considerably younger constituency?  Israel's political stagnancy, in both foreign and domestic affairs, is a direct result of the unchanging--only aging--faces in parliament.   
Mass political apathy among Israelis, most especially the younger sector, only further entrenches the empowered elders.  
Not only is there a need for revolutionary parties in Knesset that bring new ideas to the table (a Democratic Party for Israel, as proffered by Bernard Avishai, for instance), but there is a desperate need for fresh blood--an Israeli Theseus or two--to raise us from decades of malaise.  

A Murder in Dubai

The facts are still fuzzy, but they are coming together like an elaborate jigsaw puzzle, and better than anything Agatha Christie could have hoped to have written.  
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a long-standing Hamas militant, was murdered in his room at the al-Bustan Rotana Hotel in Dubai on January 20th.  Crime scene investigators have determined he was either strangled or electrocuted.  He is said to have been involved in arms procurement from Iran, according to Israeli security sources.  Hamas claims he was there to get some much needed R & R and practice his backhand: al-Mabhouh was due to play in the International Jihad Open later that week.  
Earlier today, an international warrant was issued by the Dubai Police for the arrest of eleven individuals believed to be involved in the hit job: ten men and a woman with French, British, German, and Irish passports.  The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs stated that the three Irish passports used were forgeries, and that those suspects are not Irish nationals. 

Based on CCTV footage, the operatives engaged in espionage tactics Daniel Craig could only dream of for his next Bond thriller.  Wearing multiple disguises each, arriving from multiple locations, and entering al-Mabhouh's room with copies of his key, the assassins carried out the hit with surgeon-like precision.  CNN reports: 

Footage on security cameras at Dubai International Airport show one of the suspects following al-Mabhouh after he landed, police said. Two others followed him once he arrived at the hotel...taking the same elevator and ensuring al-Mabhouh was staying in room 230.

According to the hotel, the room was in better order than it was when the cleaning staff tidied it up.  Not even suspicious stains were found on the sheets.
The Dubai Police are not ruling out the Mossad as possible perpetrators, and neither am I.  Already Yossi Melman of Ha'aretz as drawn the connection between the stealth tactics the hitmen used and the Mossad's standard operating procedures.  Take into account the fact that the target was a major arms dealer for a terrorist organization engaged in a twenty-two year conflict with Israel, and all the stars align.  
While Israel has denied allegations that its spy agency was implicated in the assassination, Inspector Hercule Poirot or Father William of Baskerville would have already asked themselves cui bono?
Israel has a vested interest in eliminating senior Hamas officials.  The subject in question was supposedly involved in the acquisition of arms from Iran, according to the Israelis, and might have been in Dubai en route to Tehran.  Knocking him off means that a critical link in the arms chain was severed.  His replacement could take months or longer.  The flow of armaments to Gaza might dry up, putting the Strip's hegemons in a precarious situation.  Without teeth and claws, and with an increasingly disillusioned and battered constituency, Hamas might soon be forced to the negotiations table.  
If indeed Israel was behind this kill: kudos for the unconventional diplomacy.  Disarming Hamas by bombing it from the air didn't get the job done and incurred the wrath of critics for its undue collateral damage.  Stemming the flow of arms at the source could do the trick.  

Breaking Silence

Over a sumptuous dinner of Indian food, I talked politics with my brother between bites of deliciously seasoned chicken and rice.  The program he staffs hosted two speakers recently, one a major in the IDF, the other a representative from a little known organization known as Breaking Silence.  Their objective-- undoubtedly branded leftist by some-- is to allow soldiers to relieve their burdened consciences.  In an organization whose policy towards violations of proper conduct is like the American military's towards homosexuals in the military-- don't ask, don't tell-- this breaking of silence comes as a breath of fresh air.

Soldiers have reported atrocities in Gaza including, but not limited to

the destruction of hundreds of houses and mosques for no military purpose, the firing of phosphorous gas in the direction of populated areas, the killing of innocent victims with small arms, the destruction of private property, and most of all, a permissive atmosphere in the command structure that enabled soldiers to act without moral restrictions.

Regardless of the IDF's policy of "taking the moral high ground", it places immature young males, without proper training or education, in situations where aggressive, violent behavior is encouraged or at least not condemned.  Egregious violations of proper conduct, some would argue war crimes, were committed last year.  If the military is disinterested and unwilling to conduct a proper investigation into the actions of its soldiery, the soldiers themselves should take the duty of telling their side of the story upon themselves.  
It took almost two decades for Lebanon War memories to be unleashed as Ari Folman did with Waltz with Bashir.  Breaking Silence gives soldiers an opportunity to put facts on the table without the intervention of an army censor.  

Considering the veracity of the statement that Israel is a country inside a military, this organization is a critical apparatus for a healthy democracy.  

The Arab-Israeli Conflict through the Lens of Inter-Cultural Communication

To analyse the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of the two theories offered by the model of intercultural communication requires that the assumption of the analyst is that points of contention between the two sides are first and foremost due to one side's lack of understanding of the other. That is to say that the actions and statements of one side are interpreted differently by the foreign audience than the meaning intended by their actors. Thus the inability to overcome differences stems not from insurmountably incompatible goals, but from the failure of each side to communicate adequately to the other due to cultural differences.

In Negotiating Across Cultures, Raymond Cohen employs the anthropologist Edward Tylor's definition of culture which he defines as: "...the outward expression of a unifying and consistent vision brought by a particular community to its confrontation with such core issues as the origins of the cosmos, the harsh unpredictability of the natural environment, the nature of society, and humankind's place in the order of things." (Cohen, 11) It is then on these points that Israelis and Arabs must have significantly diverging opinions in order for their conflict to represent a clash based on cultural misunderstanding. What defines both groups is language. On the first two points Cohen mentions, Arabs and Israelis for the most part share similar beliefs, it is with regards to the latter two that they so greatly differ.

Two theories are offered under the model of intercultural communication: the Lewis Categorisation and High vs. Low Context societies. The latter has been proposed by Cohen, who uses it as a categorisation through which individuals in a society communicate with each other. In low context societies, it is the content of one's speech that is important and society places great importance on the rights and freedoms of the individual, whereas in high context societies, the way in which that content is conveyed is equally important as the content itself; individuals are honor bound to save face and protect the reputation of their families and clans as well. The Lewis Categorisation divides societies in "Linear-Active", "Multi-Active" and "Reactive". Linear-Active societies are epitomised by direct and frank speech, a separation between work life and home life, limited body language, doing one thing at a time, a certain respect for authority, following procedures and careful planning. Persons in a Multi-Active society tend to be more extroverted, emotional in their speech, propose plans often grander than possible, impatient with details, work tirelessly, do several things once and interweaves personal and professional lives. Reactive societies are those in which an individual's duty supersedes his own desires, and thus his actions tend to be as inoffensive as possible, well thought out, face-saving, subtle body language and there is no distinction between the private and public sphere.

Certainly both groups are by no means homogeneous as the Arab world contains some 250 million persons with various dialects and traditions, and Israeli society consists of immigrants and their descendants hailing from many corners of the world. Prior to 1948 nearly one million Jews lived in Muslim lands and spoke either Arabic or Farsi. The Arab world today is not uniquely Muslim and contains a number of Christian communities who nonetheless identify themselves as Arab because it is equally their language. For the most part, culture is the outcome of generations upon generations of people living in the same place, speaking the same tongue, who together develop specific customs that then become codified (wether written or otherwise) over time. Arabic has been codified as the written, official and liturgical language of all Arabs, regardless of their country of origin, which has superimposed a unity otherwise absent considering that a Moroccan and an Iraqi attempting to converse with each other in the language they speak at home would be mutually unintelligible to each other. The Quran is the reason behind this, as Islamic society has always put tremendous emphasis on the study of the Quran which is written in Fus'ha (or Standard Arabic). As a result, the Arabic language itself is littered with religious references and many ideas are inexpressible without mentioning God. The Arabic language is also highly formulaic, and traditional greetings and phrases have specific responses to them, often in a religious context. One may not express hopes, fears or accomplishemnts in Arabic without acknowledging that the outcome is up to God (i.e. "In Sha' Allah, it will be sunny tomorrow." "Ma Sha' Allah, I did well on the test.") Arabs tend to exhibit the traits of a Multi-Active society almost to the tee, and were thus mentioned in Lewis' formulation of the model. They can also be considered an high context society based on Cohen's model, as the interweaving of personal and professional lives, in combination with a very rich language whose subtleties greatly affect communication, put them in this category.

Israel represents an anomaly in that it is a society formed by persons of disparate origins whose desire for unity stems from a shared homeland and language 2000 years prior to the creation of the current state. Israel is at odds with itself in terms of the competing ideologies, desires, beliefs and cultural practices of the multiple constituent groups within its society. Great divisions exist between the secular, national-religious and ultra-orthodox communities in Israel. Furthermore, the cultures of the countries from which Jews came have had a lasting influence over the way in which Israelis as individuals answer the questions inherent in the establishment of culture. To further confound the issue, Israel was founded on the principle of shedding divisive linguistic distinctions in order to create a new common identity through the Hebrew language. The Hebrew language culture of Israel looks to the Western model of development whose emphasis is on the liberties and successes of the individual, while much of its population descends from non-Western origins.

In this light, the Mizrahi Jews who migrated to Israel, whether from Morocco, Yemen, Iran or elsewhere, have actively rejected Arab identity in favour of a Western identity. Many of these communities were centuries if not millennia old, and had developed distinct customs both from each other and more markedly from their European coreligionists. The Mizrahi ultra-orthodox, in fact, have shed their Middle Eastern attire for the anachronistic black suits and hats of their Eastern European counterparts. The ultra-orthodox on both sides employ religious references frequently in their speech, and the use of such is easily identified by secular and religious Israelis alike as a sign of their religiosity (i.e. Barukh HaShem, B'Ezrat HaShem). Unlike in the Arab world, however, a large portion of Israeli society forgoes such sayings, although they can be used to connote a certain affectation. Indeed secular persons of Arab origin are more heavily represented in Israel than in the Arab world. The recent influx of one million Russian speakers in Israel has added another face to the complex Israeli identity.

Because there exists no large secular community in Arab countries that asserts the primacy of secular education and lifestyle, it can be said that by their own society's standards one is either religious or a hypocrite, for never does an Arab reject his religious principles (whether Islamic or Christian) in Arab society, whether he lives by them or not. Many Arabs have done so, however, once having moved to a Western country. Nonetheless, a number of Arab countries with whom Israel is or has been in conflict, have secular governments. The governments of Egypt and Syria have long strived to quash elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood from their societies.

Israel's religious communities seem to function as Multi-Active societies while the secular are by and large more Linear-Active (or at least attempt to be). Nonetheless, this does not come naturally to those of Mizrahi origin who more closely resemble Arabs in their often loud and emotional way of doing business. As Israel becomes ever more developed, however, those working in international fields such as high-tech have adopted a Western model of beavioural norms for business negotiations. The government in Israel, consists of lawmakers attempting to represent the interests of both the religious and the secular, the Ashkenazim and the Mizrahim, and lastly the Russians. While secular Israelis of many ethnic origins all place emphasis on the liberty of the individual, religious groups maintain control by placing greater import on the well being of the group. One's actions in religious society ought to conform with the norms of that society and in ought to strengthen it before strengthening oneself.

The conflict between Israelis and Arabs, however, is not limited to interactions between governments as militant organisations deemed terrorist, have since the 1980's taken on an ever more religious character. Hamas and Hizbullah leaders frequently make speeches that reflect the Multi-Acitve nature of their society. They make grand claims of desired genocide on the Jewish people, which in their society is interpreted as placing further emphasis on a point, but which in Israeli society is interpreted as real threats. Arab governments seldom makes such statements (Iran is not an Arab country). To mimic such behaviour, extremist Jewish religious and far-right secular leaders have made equally grand proposals of genocide and holy war on the Arab enemy, which frequently causes embarrassment for an Israeli government that must attempt to explain itself to its Western, secular, Linear-Active allies. Thus decision making on both sides is not the exclusive domain of secular governments with Linear-Active outlooks, but also the domain of extremist groups, religious or otherwise, that employ flowery and inciting language heavily reliant on a centuries old linguistic tradition. While the Arabs are easily categorised as high context or Multi-Active, Israelis are not unified enough in their thinking for the whole society to be labeled as one or the other. Thus Israeli governments must tackle the disparate cultures within their own society, and Arab leaders have to gauge with whom it is exactly that they are dealing. Israeli governments certainly suffer from an inability to understand the seriousness of Arab threats, while those grand threats are made because such is commonplace in expression in Arabic. All of this is complicated by religions whose adherents are forbidden from seriously considering the side of the other. In short, the model of intercultural communication sheds lights not only on difficulties in negotiating the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also on the lack of cultural unity present in Israeli society.

Saint Silvio...Well, Not Really

When it was publicized that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was planning on making a lengthy state visit to Israel, the first few thoughts that came to mind had absolutely nothing to do with the political and diplomatic importance of his trip. Rather, it triggered my desire to surf You Tube for Berlusconi’s highlight reel of outrageous speeches and unintentionally quirky moments caught on camera (ie: calling himself “the Jesus Christ of Italian Politics”, likening his political accomplishments to those of Napoleon, or, most recently – being pelted in the face with a mini replica of the Milan cathedral after a campaign rally).

Brushing these inane images aside however, it is clear that Berlusconi’s presence in Israel was not merely just another friendly, state visit by a strong ally reassuring its support for Israel’s sovereignty while taking a detailed tour of Yad Vashem (even though that was included). Rather, this trip was a campaign visit - a campaign visit by the Prime Minister of the European Union’s fourth most productive economy, advocating the inclusion of Israel in the European Economic Community. Furthermore, it was a campaign visit voicing the silent support of countries like England and France, two countries that may find it hard to publicly display their support for this membership due to domestic circumstances regarding their large and increasingly radicalized Muslim sectors.

Obviously, this is not a new concept [Israeli membership in the EU] nor is it a guarantee of instantaneous economical growth; however, it would ensure a greater sense of force and commitment by the European Union to stabilizing the region as it would potentially have two member states (assuming Turkey eventually gains membership) nested within the world’s most unpredictable territory. Lets just say that the boiling point would have a far greater chance of being mitigated were the arms of the EU able to stretch across the Mediterranean.

The underlying question would be whether or not acceptance into the EU would be contingent on a peace agreement with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon or only the Palestinians themselves. Would the European Union – even if an accord were reached with the Palestinians – be willing to accept a country that was still officially in a state of war with two of its neighboring states? Or would inclusion signal the end of this war without coming to a peace agreement – more on a de facto basis, as neither Syria nor Lebanon would dare attack a member of the EU?

The reality is that Israel is a long way off from becoming a member of the European community, even though it has all the resources and aspirations to become a major contributor to the Union’s development and economic prowess. Nonetheless, when Berlusconi scolds Iran for its unacceptable actions in the pursuit of nuclear energy while proactively defending Israel in the wake of the Goldstone investigation and issuing unrelenting praises of support for Israel, like when he says such things as "your people, your country and your history. My policies have always been in line with the policies of the Prime Minister of Israel”, you would think he is referring to an already existing state within the EU. It looks like the Jesus of Italian politics has left his mark on Jerusalem!

The Coffee Trader: a brief book review

A few years ago I read A Conspiracy of Papers by David Liss for a course on detective fiction.  It was sub-categorized as "historical detective fiction" because the setting was 17th century England during the rise of the first stock exchange.  Through the eyes of a Jewish protagonist, Liss navigates the reader through intra-Jewish relations and with Puritan society at large.  Elaborate twists and turns ensure a thrilling read.
Just this past week I was at my sister's, where I pilfered a number of books from her shelves.  Amongst them I saw a familiar name: David Liss.  I was not aware of his other works.  This one was entitled The Coffee Trader, another rollercoaster ride through historical backdrops with a generous dose of unconventional Jewish history.
The Coffee Trader takes place in 17th century Amsterdam: a bustling pre-modern city packed to the gills with merchants, investors, and conniving plots.  Our hero?  A Jewish converso refugee from Portugal with a taste for trade.  His monetary plight rings true to everyone enduring this recession, and gives the reader a hearty dollop of hope that would make Obama proud.
The writing is elegantly descriptive but easy to read (I wolfed down the entire novel in a matter of three days).  The plot is full of intrigue, and the characters are realistic and relatable-- no perfection in any of these folk.  Best of all, the historical setting is a wonderful way to reap information about the time period and the emergence of the first commodities market.
For those interested in a great read, I highly recommend both novels

Linking Berlusconi and Turkey

A few months ago, Turkey made a move it hoped would force the EU to decide to either accept it as a member state, or watch it--wedged between the Muslim world and Europe--join forces with the state trying to get the technology to hurt Europe: Iran.

Anyone who studied the world map at that point quickly realized that Turkey is in fact bluffing. The fact that Turkey is unable to detach itself from the West unilaterally – due to massive dependence on Western technology and military support – is well known, and cannot be dismissed merely because Turkey does not agree with Israel’s policy in the Gaza strip or because it had the Turkish ambassador sit on a stool.

The truth is that Turkey is seeking short cuts to the EU because it perceives itself as a major regional power. The Europeans are not so inclined to induct a Muslim country of 75 million people – which translates to almost as much power in the EU as Germany - into the Christian heartland whose own population is dwindling.

In reaction to tremors of rejection from the EU, Turkey has increased its diplomatic belligerence towards Israel. By rattling the saber of human rights at Israel over Operation Cast Lead, Turkey means to demonstrate its worthiness to the EU through shared values. European policy makers have sniffed out the Turkish bluff.

Berlusconi’s visit is no doubt a direct response to Turkish recent warming of relations with Iran. Can Berlusconi’s proclaimed dream of “making Israel an EU member at his tenure” -- while Turkey relentlessly tries to jam a foot in Europe's door -- be a mere coincidence? Saying Israel is ready to become an EU member in the near future is almost as pretentious as saying Erdoğan’s empathy for the Gaza's misery is genuine. Berlusconi's boast coming as an answer to the implicit threat made by Turkey is a more plausible explanation. Europe is signaling to Turkey that if the two sides really share mutual values, Turkey should have known better than to try to advance its interests through threats in the 21^st century.

The EU itself is based on Aristotle's claim: "the whole is more than the sum of its parts"-- concession of individual state power in order to augment collective strength. Turkey on the other hand, characteristic of its present leader's arrogance, chose coercion. In response, Berlusconi opened the EU's doors to the Jews out of spite.

Reëxamining Operation Cast Lead

Yesterday's papers reported that two Israeli officers will suffer disciplinary action for "exceeding their authority" in last year's Gaza Strip operation by firing white phosphorus rounds injudiciously. Although not explicitly in violation of international law, use of the highly flammable substance in the world's most densely populated locale has incurred the wrath of human rights advocates, Palestinians, and some Israelis. In this case, white phosphorus rounds were allegedly fired towards the UNRWA headquarters in order to provide a smoke screen for Israeli troops; the resultant civilian injuries were deemed negligent.

The IDF's action has thrown open the possibility of a governmental investigation of the military's actions in Gaza last year. This kind of inquiry is imperative to the political health of a democracy. An independent government inquiry should determine in an unbiased manner (unlike Goldstone or the IDF) the veracity of claims that Israeli operatives committed war crimes.

I raised this issue to two different friends and received identical responses: 1) Israel took greater care in conducting its operation than any other army in the history of warfare, 2) the United States has not only killed more civilians but a higher ratio in relation to combatants, and 3) Israeli soldiers should concentrate on the battlefield and not the consequences of their actions thereafter.

First, Israel took great care in Operation Cast Lead to minimize civilian casualties and considering the population density they indeed kept loses lower than they could have been. A less prudent state could have (or might have) leveled Gaza and have been rid of a thorn in their side. For this I commend Israel. Nevertheless, good intent does not preclude the possibility of war crime claims being true. The Allied campaign to liberate Europe was undoubtedly just, but who can deny our dastardly deed at Dresden. Israel needs to conduct an investigation into what violations (if any) Israeli soldiers committed in order to uphold the rule of law.

Addressing the second point, I will paraphrase my verbal reaction: "Who cares about the U.S.? This is about Israel." The American military's conduct is far from flawless, and it deserves greater scrutiny and accountability to the American public. What the American armed forces do is irrelevant. The Israeli military should be under the watchful eye of vigilant Israeli citizens, who should focus on the policies and actions of their soldiers, not the America's.

Third, Israeli soldiers should be conscientious of what they are doing. They are not Nazis. They should be critical thinking individuals capable of discerning right from wrong even in under the duress of combat. If we want Israeli soldiers to follow orders without investing energy in critical thought, we should employ an army of robots (see "Iron Dome Syndrome").

Difficult and undesirable as it may be, Israel needs to open the closet and see what lies within: skeletons and dust bunnies alike.