Israeli nismanagement

NIS is for New Israeli Shekel.

Four news items caught my attention today:

1. Israel approved transferring 100,000 NIS to Gaza (Hamas leadership) due to its cash flow problems.
2. Holocaust restitution fund spends NIS 30m of survivors' money on itself.
3. Diplomats ordered to cut costs by flying coach class.
4. The Israeli economy has stopped growing.

While it was thought that Israel would escape the effects of the global economic downturn, in large part the result of an earlier bank and financial overhaul, it's clear that all economies connected to the global economic community and especially the American economy will suffer. The credit crunch has come to Israel.

The idea that Israel would be willing to transfer funds to pay the salaries of the Hamas bureaucracy especially in light of its diplomatic and economic embargo/closure is mind boggling. I thought the goal was to pressure Hamas and the Gaza people to end its existence and return political authority to the Palestinian Authority (Abbas). While withholding humanitarian aid--food, fuel and medical supplies--is verboten, how can Israel justify supporting a government that it deems illegitimate. A political entity that (a) continues to hold Gilad Shalit (nearly 900 days!) without allowing anyone to see him and verify his life status and (b) continues to bomb southern Israel (from Sedrot to the Ashkelon/Kiryat Gat area). What was Ehud Barak (Minister of Defence and Chair of the Labour Party) thinking? Both issues require resolution before even one agura is sent to Hamas. Gilat Shalit must be returned to Israel immediately and if Hamas is genuinely interested in peace the bombing must stop. If not, Israel should (a) withhold all funds and (b) plan for a quick military strike against Hamas strongholds and its leadership.

Government at its worst is at play with the other two issues. That diplomats (vice deputy directors right now) have the right to fly business or first class is beyond me. The time has come for all government employees to fly the least expensive way possible. They're flying on my (income tax + other taxes) tab. Unless everyone is entitled to fly business class, then let's save the section for those who are paying their own way.

The Israeli government in general and specifically the Holocaust restitution fund has dragged its feet for too long. The status of the remaining survivors is dire, they need to live their final years in dignity and not in dire poverty and shame. It seems that official bodies are waiting for them to die and then pocketing the money for themselves. Israeli history seems full of discrimination and insensitivity towards the scars and concerns of the holocaust survivors. The time is long overdue to reverse the trend and give them their dignity.

Primary colours

With the Israeli elections two months away--February 10, 2009--it's party primary season. The three larger (secular) parties, Kadima, Labour, Likud and Mertez scheduled their primaries for early December. The other parties, the religious ones -- Shas, UTJ -- have their Rabbis pick them (for ritual purity perhaps?) and a number of right-wing parties have their central committee (Bayit Hayehudi) pick their list or the Chair like Yisrael Beytenu picks his list (trusted followers?).

According to recent polls as reported in The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, Likud is leading with between 31-36 seats (depending on the poll you rely upon), Kadima 24-27 and Labour around 12 seats.

Every party will put the best face on their primary/internal election results. Labour which held their delayed -- the computers crushed so they pushed the elections off a couple of days -- last Thursday (4 November) expressed their satisfaction that their list is a winner, even if others view as it as an acceptance of being an opposition party.

Likud also had computer problems which forced it to keep its polls open another three hours, until 1:00 Wednesday the 9th. Once its results were published, the debate began on the "Feiglin Effect" as Moshe Feiglin the "Jewish Leadership" faction chair received the 20th place and his followers also received other 'realistic' places on the list. On one hand, he's viewed as a right wing reactionary who seeks to dispose the (Palestinian) Arab population in Israel and destroy the Palestinian Authority/Gaza, a fascist. Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to push him off the list by having the regional representatives fill the 21-37 slots and women fill the 10 and 20 slots. If his advisers convince the party's election council to accept its appeal, Feiglin will mus likely not receive a seat in the next Knesset. Personally, it's all politics, which could back fire on Likud and Netanyahu. Currently, despite Netanyahu's best efforts (which only gave Feiglin great attention and success/legitimacy) and Feiglin's place on the list, Likud has increased its popularity.

Next up, on Sunday the 14th is Meretz followed on the 17th with Kadima primaries. They will be having a paper ballot.

Reading the riot act

The events of the last several days in Hevron surrounding the evacuation of the "House of Peace/Contention" (pick your name) when settlers--those directly associated with the settlement and their supporters--many of them religiously observant attacked not only government officials (the border police and the army) but also the local Palestinian population was a hilul hashem [a desecration of god's name]. The riot that ensued gives Israel a bad name among the world and religious Judaism a bad name among secular Israelis and other Jews.

Such behavior cannot be condoned, either by the government and especially by the religious leadership. The Prime Minister and the Israeli Defence establishment were explicit in his condemnation of the act. The Rabbinic leadership less so, if at all.

As much as it may be true that youth have a propensity to act out and disregard the advise of their elders (and Rabbis), I'm not sure that the violence is unavoidable as suggested by Rabbi Avinoam Horowitz of the Yeshiva High School of Kiryat Arba (YATKA).

Someone, an (irresponsible) adult, was assiting them. Focus has been placed upon Daniella Weiss, who Ephriam Sneh have called for her arrest and Dani Golan the head of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip has demanded that she be removed from the area.

No matter the excuses offered for the underlying causes of the the rampage that ensued -- the residual effects of the evacuation of Gush Katif, general government policy, etc. -- it's clear to me that the social mores and the national religious religious educational frameworks are at the core. The lack of respect for the State of Israel and its democratic institutions seems to have been ingrained in the national religious/settler educational system. From parents, teachers and especially Rabbis, the messianism and xenophobia (aka anti-Arab and Palestinian prejudices) have become de rigueur. Respect for the other--Jew included--is no longer valued. Extremism has become the norm rather than the exception.

As much as I want to believe it, I can't share the words of an anonymous Rabbi:

Daniella Weiss and her extremist methods turned out to be a complete failure, ... The evacuation of Beit Hashalom was quicker than even one house in Gush Katif, which proves the futility of violence. Hopefully now people will be more willing to listen to a more moderate voice.

The voice of moderation will only be heard once "The Riot Act" is read and enforced by the those who claim leadership, and those who either encourage or publicly condone such extremist behavior are called on it and forced to answer, preferably in court, for their behavior.

Last Week

I have good news (if only for me) and bad news.

First the good news. Nir Barkat is ready to be mayor of Jerusalem as of this Thursday (4.Dec). Ha'artez reported on Thursday that his coalition is in place. For the first time in nearly four decades (!), there isn't a haredi party in the coalition.

The bad news is the events in Mumbai. The senseless deaths of everyone especially those at the Habad House--the Rabbi and his wife--grieves me endlessly. For three days the world waited on the edge of their seats to see how the terrorist standoff would end and who would survive. Only later was it discovered that everyone (who died) at Habad House was murdered Wednesday evening. Their child is now an orphan.

Baruch Dayan Emet.

Sink or bail them out?

The current economic situation has governments reeling to figure out how to "calm the rough waters" of the economic upheavals. Financial institutions--banks, insurance companies and pension funds--are failing, major corporations--including the "Big 3 car makers" (Chrysler, Ford and GM)--are also searching for a way out of their financial morass. And, then, there's the country of Iceland which was on the brink of bankruptcy due to the failure of its larger banks until the international community and the IMF came to its rescue. Some have suggested parallels to The Great Depression.

To extend the nautical metaphor, what's to be done with the "sinking ship"? Do we save those on board (everyone, only the passengers, the crew, the captain, or some combination?), bail out the water (so it continues to float and continue on its journey as before?) or, let it sink (writing off the 'asset' and starting fresh)?

Somehow, the fact that the people most responsible for the current state of affairs, the government officials who pushed for massive deregulation, money mangers (CEO's and other industry leaders) who engaged in risky behavior--lending to the truly credit unworthy, sub-prime lenders, and decision-makers (and those with influence) who refused to engage in prudent thinking and behavior that the "housing bubble" was just that a bubble and an infinite trend -- should profit from their irresponsible behavior irks me. Yes, the companies in trouble are frequently large and their failure could snowball, however, everyone needs to be held accountable for their behavior. Executive pay should reflect actual results (as opposed to stock prices and short-term profits), not just small companies,who frequently lack the lobbying power of the large and multinational corporations, should be 'allowed' (forced) to declare bankruptcy.

It's truly ironic that the free enterprise, "objectivism" (a la Ayn Rand) of the George W Bush administration has become the lead voice for bailing out the large financial institutions -- pure socialism at its finest. Then, of course, GWB needs to continue protecting and promoting the interests of his friends (or those of Dick Cheney).

Let's protect the interests of the more innocent--since no one is completely innocent or without blame/responsibility--segments of the affected population. The investors, especially those too old to wait around to recoup their "losses", the workers being laid off due to the needed staff cuts retrenchments. Let the CEO's and their ilk face the proverbial drummer.

Let the boats sink while rescuing the passengers and lowly crew.

Gold dust in my eyes ...

Nir Barkat won the Jerusalem mayoral race handily, garnering 51% of the vote to Meir Porush's 41%. While it wasn't the revolution as portrayed by the press, it was a welcome sign that the rule -- or at least the mayor's chair -- has returned to secular (non-haredi) hands. What was truly amazing is the voter turnout -- almost all Jews(the Arabs boycotted the election) -- was 42%. The Barkat campaign workd hard to bring out the secular vote and the haredi communities were split leaving some to not vote (their Rabbis told them nothing) and others like the Ger Hasidim to actually vote for Barkat!


Several days later (though not yet appearing on the City of Jerusalem website), the results of the council elections appeared: UTJ (Ashkenazi Haredi) garnered 8 seats, Barkat's group 6, Shas (Sfardi Haredi) 5, NRP and Meretz each 3, Hitarut Yerushalayim 2 and Likud, Israel Beitaynu, Piskat Ze'ev and L'mayan Yerushalayim all received one seat.

What does all this mean?

1. A non-haredi government/coalition is possible. Excluding UTJ and Shas the coalition would still have 18 seats (out of 31).
2. Should the NRP + another party refuse to join, Barkat will not have a ruling majority. Creating a majority will require enticing a religious party to join at the cost of 'paying their price'.

In the case of 2, I fear a repetition of the governance of the last 20 years (the tail-end of Kolleck until present). Any and all attempts by Barkat to revitalize the city--principally by making Jerusalem a more modern and open city--culturally, commercially will fail. The city will continue its free fall and remain an economically distressed area and the non-haredi populations will continue to flee the city.

He will also need to devise a way to make an end run around the council to achieve his goals.

While it was wonderful that Barkat was able to get out the vote for the election, I'm not sure people are willing to be actively involved as "change agents" for the entire (or even part) of the five year term of office.

Unless Barkat establishes a truly supportive city council coalition, it'll be SOS (same old s*****). It won't even be a reformation, never mind, a revolution.

Jerusalem Goes to the Polls

Today (Tues 11.11.08) is local election day in Israel, a time for people to complain how poorly the city is run and then stay away from the polls because the choices are so poor and besides, it doesn't really matter who wins.


For me, at least in Jerusalem, it does matter to me who becomes mayor and controls the city council. The status quo can't continue. The haredi control of council has strangled and stifled the growth of Jerusalem for decades--since the reign of Teddy Kolleck. Having a mayor whose eye is not on Kikar Safra (the location of City Hall) but somewhere else--the Knesset (Olmert) or Kikar Shabbat (the centre of Mea Sharim/Haredi Judaism) has turned Jerusalem into one of the poorest city in Israel.


This time around, four people are running for mayor. Two front runners, Meir Porush (Haredi and currently Member of Knesset) and Nir Barkat ('secular', former high tech entrepreneur and head of the opposition in the Jerusalem city council), and two also-rans, Arcardi Gaydamak and Dan Biron. The latter two, as far as I'm concerned, serve as protest votes and a way to split the non-haredi vote thus, assuring a Porush victory. Whereas, the non-haredi population seems to be concerned by personality, the haredi population tends to vote as a bloc--as dictated by their Rabbi (or "supreme leader"). Thus, haredi candidates (=those supported by the community) are assured of a guaranteed number of votes. (Should the haredi communal leadership refuse to endorse anyone, the haredi vote is negligible. I don't think that'll happen now, the powerful allure of money and power is too strong for all involved to ignore the haredi population.)


While I certainly understand that nether of front runners is "perfect", elections rarely are. They're more often a choice between worse and slightly less bad. If true, then it's a matter of holding your nose and voting for the least offensive choice. To either refuse to vote at all or cast a protest vote only serves to dilute the opportunity to create real change. A number of "leftists" I know are offended by Barkat's pronouncements (anti-Palestinian) and refuse to vote for Porush. Their refusal to 'hold their nose' means that the next five years will stink in Jerusalem.


Whatever political maneuvering Nir Brakat has engaged in, to better assure his election, at least he has his eye on Kikar Safra. He seems genuinely concerned about the welfare of all of Jerusalem and not just a selected few. After losing the last municipal election five years ago, he stuck it out sitting in the opposition of city council (when he could have just said "forget about it the hassle and frustration isn't worth the effort"). I respect that.

Up until a week ago, I had no idea idea who to vote for in the council portion of the election. My worst case scenario was Nir Barkat as mayor with a haredi council as what happened during the reign of Teddy Kolleck (and Ehud Olmert). Both found it necessary to achieve some of their goals--mostly in the cultural area--by organizing a (new) Jerusalem Foundation.

After attending a parlor meeting, I decided to stop worrying based on the assumption that if Barkat wins the mayoral race will also mean a non-haredi council.

The question then became which 'party' to vote for. Since a vote for a group that doesn't pass the vote threshold is considered a "spoiled ballot" and doesn't count a a vote (as does a blank ballot/ piece of paper).

At the meeting were two parties -- Hit'toarut Yerushalyim and Barkat. After listening to both, I realize my best option was to vote for Barkat and not split the non-haredi vote among the smaller parties.

STOP.

According to the telephone poll of Channel 1, Barkat will be the next mayor. YAY and we'll see.

The End is Near...2008 US Elections

After two years, the 2008 US Presidential elections are over. Voting is today. The only sure thing is this election represents the end of the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidency. Whether it represents a new beginning (Obama) or more of the same (McCain) remains to be seen.

While my preference is an Obama win and he is leading in the polls by a significant margin, stranger things have happened. McCain has run a terrible campaign, but that has not stopped him and his (Rove-trained) team from running a personally negative campaign. I'm also not sure if America is really ready for an African-American (a term invented for Barack Obama whose father was African and his mother a white American) President and if the GOP is willing to let ALL voters determine the victor instead of relying on "dirty tricks" (all the while claiming to be concerned about voter fraud.)

As well as Obama has run his campaign; kept his cool throughout a tough Primary campaign against especially Hilliary Clinton and the actual presidential campaign, stayed on message including raising many of the important issues confronting America (and the world) -- health care, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the wider war against terror), the collapsing economy, education ... -- and choosing his team including the VP (Joe Biden) carefully, McCain has appeared tired (and his high energy), impulsive and angry.

The decision to (a) choose Sarah Palin as his VP, (b) temporarily suspend his campaign when the financial crisis broke open, (c) go personally negative where just some of actions that made his campaign poorly run. Despite cultivating the image of being a "maverick" , McCain showed himself to be a Bush want-to-be. His recent voting record, 90% pro-Bush, the number of GW Bush alumni on his staff has shown him to be a closet Bushie.

After eight disastrous years of a GW Bush administration, America is ready for real change. Will they vote for Obama or fall for McCain?

Despite the lack of government experience, Obama has shown himself to be "presidential". His ability to appear (and I believe actually) thoughtful and intelligent will be a vast improvement on the politically manipulative and sloppy management style of the Bush White House. McCain, despite his rhetoric, will be a continuation of the Bush mismanagement -- appointing cronies to sensitive positions (e.g. FEMA), irresponsible government deregulation (which I believe greatly contributed to the economic/financial meltdown), staying in Iraq while ignoring Afghanistan, alienating old-time allies and further aggravating the international standing of America throughout the globe and poor stewardship of the global environment. The only change during the McCain administration would be cosmetic.

Then, there's Sarah Palin. Where the hell did he find her and why if he had four months to vet all his potential VP candidates, did he mess up with her; her pregnant 17 year old daughter (who epitomizes the adage "Abstinence makes the heart go fonder"), the allegations of overstepping her powers as govenor (tryig to fire her ex brother-in-law), her hiring practices as mayor and governor (friends > competence, a la GW Bush) ... Despite seeking to cultivate her image as a simple "hockey mom" the RNC went out and spent $150K on outfitting her (why did they wait until the Republican National Convention to buy clothes). Despite calling for "common values" and cleaning up Washington, she refused to release her financial statement (which shown her income to be far above the average) and health statement until the last minute, in the face of mounting public displeasure.

America doesn't need an average person to lead, -- it tried that with GWB-- it needs someone willing and able to lead with intelligence and forethought. Someone willing and able to excite and motivate others to stretch and make America great. Obama by getting previously apathic and alienated voters to come to the polls and vote, says a great deal about his ability to lead America to even greater things over the next four years.

Hopefully, the rest of America will agree and welcome him as the next President of the United States of America.

DOA - Thoughts on the Prisoner Exchange

Eldad Regev and Ehud "Udi" Goldwasser returned to Israel yesterday--in a coffin. It appears that they were killed upon their capture by Hezbollah two years ago at the start of the 2nd Lebanon War. They were dead on arrival in Lebanon and DOA upon their return to Israel. During the intervening two years, their families and by extension the entire Israeli society were cynically left in netherland about their condition by Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah) with the complicit approval of the (however weak) Government of Lebanon. (The Lebanese leadership--its (new)President and Prime Minister as well as other government members attended and blessed the returning released prisoners from Israel as "heroes".) While Lebanon --and the rest of the militant Islamic world (especially the Palestinians and Hamas as well as Iran) hailed the event as a celebration of victory, in Israel the entire day was a somber and emotional difficult one. The agreement may have provided, finally, closure to the 2nd Lebanon War, it came at a tremendous cost.

With the bodies back, the "armchair quarterbacking" and second guessing has begun in earnest. Just see today's Haaretz newspaper.

While criticizing Israel's behavior, Amos Harel writes:

citizens in the street were up in arms over the last dirty trick that Hezbollah tried to play, when a senior member of the organization, Wafiq Safa, kept the suspense alive until the very last moment by refusing to reveal -- a look of smug self-satisfaction on his face -- whether the soldiers were alive or dead. ... We released a child killer [Samir Kuntar] and got coffins in return.

Israel Harel critiques Israel for paying an exorbitant price and compromising its values. Shlomo Averini criticizes the Israel government/leadership for not setting its policy straight and allowing outsiders -- the media, the families and public opinion, a commitment to doing EVERYTHING to bring soldiers back --to direct its actions which cold affect future situations.

The one suggestion that needs to be implemented immediately is:

Israel must announce that it will not begin negotiations without knowing whether the captives or abductees are dead or alive. At the same time, Israel must insist that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross be permitted to see the captives and submit an official report on their condition. This principle can be adopted now in the case of Gilad Shalit: It is not acceptable for the kidnappers to give his family a letter, as an act of kindness, without a transparent report on his condition. Both demands are backed up by international law.

From everything I read and heard in the media, it was pretty clear that Udi and Eldad died during (or immediately following) their abduction. Why wasn't it made common knowledge so negotiations and family expectations concerning their release be taken into account? Would we have really released Kuntar for bodies or would it have been better to keep him as a "bargaining chip" for either REAL information on Ron Arad or a live soldier? The way it was, and now is, it appears that Israel was blind to the reality (of the situation and the "rules of the game"/ realpolitik) and played for a fool. This is not a way for a strong sovereign nation to behave if it wishes to maintain its dignity and ongoing survival.

Sorry, your test results are secret

In Tuesday's NYT there was an investigative piece about the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act" [Hipaa].

In a supposed desire to uphold the 1996 law protecting the confidentiality of patient medical records, health care workers -- principally nurses and office workers -- refuse to disclose medical information to family members, public safety officials (investigating police officers or social service workers) and even in same cases other medical professionals not directly assigned to the patient at the time of 'official' treatment.

As well meaning as the legislation is -- there's a clear need to ensure that the medical records of a person remain private -- it's fraught with unintended consequences largely the result of poorly trained providers. Workers in the medical facilities refusing to disclose necessary medical information to next of kin or other appropriate bodies and an enforcement system (Health and Human Services) oblivious to the need for ensuring intelligent ("common sense") design and implementation.

The situation of its implementation has gotten so bad that someone related that "A lab technician once refused to give me a copy of MY OWN lab results at a lab. where I had a lipid profile, on the grounds that it was prohibited by Hipaa."

In an interview with Susan McAndrew, deputy director for health information privacy in the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services one quote jumped out at me:

Q. I also could not figure out, either from the website, actually reading the law or interviewing both providers and privacy experts, whether your department took or investigated complaints about unnecessary or inappropriate withholding of information.
A. Failure to exercise discretion is not a violation. If we receive a complaint or inquiry about non-disclosure to family or friends, or non-disclosure to another health care provider, we don’t investigate those cases because they’re not subject to enforcement action. We deal with those situations on an education level. [emphasis added]

It's that kind of attitude that generated the stack of letters the NYT published in response to their original article.

A number of letters came from children or other family members who had sought information about about their family member, only to be denied because of hippa laws, including this situation:

My father in Florida was in a hospice and I was in California. I called to check on his condition and was told they could not inform me because of hipaa laws. I yelled and screamed at them. I became very distraught. Later I found out that he was already dead at the time of that conversation and they wouldn't even tell me that.

Another letter related how even with the "patient" beside him, he was asked to leave the room when they discussed her medical condition:

In 2004 when my wife and I had an insurance coverage issue, we met with the Human Resources manager at my wife's employer. The HR director said that she couldn't discuss that matter with me because it would be a violation of Hipaa. Even though I was sitting right beside my wife!

Then there are these two stories:

1. I have a hard time remembering the names of my prescriptions, but Kaiser Permanente pharmacists refused to let me look at my very own screen on their computers, to ask for what has been prescribed to me. (Now I keep a list in my purse for this purpose.) 2. When my aunt's caregiver (Auntie is an alcoholic with dementia) went to the hospital and I was trying to decide what to do about her care I wasn't able to find out WHICH hospital or her prognosis until after her death, some five days later. I had no clue as to seriousness of the problem, and I was trying to cope from 3000 miles away, since I make medical decisions for my aunt.

One writer suggested that patient care is compromised as other care givers are denied previous medical information.

As a radiologist, I have found the legislation to be nothing but a headache that
detracts from my ability to provide the best possible care [for] my patients, ...
[particularly] as a patient moves from provider to provider.

It can be very difficult for a radiologist to get clinical data and follow-up information about a patient. Examples: 1) Patient is having a M.R.I. at our imaging center. I call for a report on a prior M.R.I., done at another institution. Staff will refuse to fax it over ... 2) Patient is having a MRI of the knee at our imaging center. The patient has had arthroscopic surgery on that knee. I call for an operative report. Staff will refuse to fax it over. 3) Patient has a shoulder M.R.I. at our center, and has some unusual findings. The patient has surgery on the shoulder, and I call over for the operative
report. By knowing what the intraoperative findings are, I improve as a radiologist, and the next time I see these findings, I will recognize them for what they are. This is one important way doctors improve over time - getting feedback on their performance. Even though I am a consultant to the referring physician, the office staff will refuse to fax me the operative report. [emphasis added]

The absurdity of how the law is being managed is illustrated best by how the article ended

A hospital spokeswoman, Elena Mesa, was asked if nurses were following Hipaa protocol when they denied adult children information about their parents. She could not answer the question, Ms. Mesa said, because Hipaa prevented her from such discussions with the press.

59 and counting - reflections on Israel

The Israel "Holy Week" -- Yom HaShoah [Holocaust Remembrance Day] through Yom HaZikaron [Memorial Day for those killed in service to the country or as a victim of terrorism] and lastly Yom Ha'atzmaout [Independence Day] -- is completed so it's time to reflect upon how each day illuminates the current Israeli reality.

Yom HaShoah was established to be observed exactly a week before Yom HaZikaron. I assume that was done to reinforce the idea that there's a direct connection between the horrors of the Shoah [Holocaust] and the Nazi death camps of WW2 and the creation/establishment of the State of Israel. Unfortunately, it's connection is more conceptual than actual.

• This year it was reported that more than one-third of Holocaust survivors are living under conditions of dire poverty.
• The Israeli government has been accused of being slow and negligent in ensuring that the pre-war assets (bank accounts and property) of those who perished during the Shoah are returned to their surviving family members.
• With the exception of "official" acts -- the establishment of Yad Vashem, the active work in bringing over survivors from the Displaced Persons' camps, negotiating reparations from Germany and the pursuit of Nazi war criminals -- there was little effort expended to help make the survivors' lives easier. Frequently, survivors were 'encouraged' to establish a new identity (e.g. changing their name) in Israel. Their struggle wasn't recognized by allowing them to 'work through their issues'. It may have gone so far as to use the example of the Shoah as a paradigmatic example of "Galut" Jewish life and how the Israeli (no longer powerless militarily or subject to foreign governmental and cultural influences on their daily lives) was the new Jew. Hebrew not Yiddish was the "Jewish" language.

Yom HaZikaron is observed the day before Yom Ha'atzmaout, to reinforce and concretize the sacrifices made to maintain the State of Israel. While it's certainly true that there's a direct connection between the two days, it's often difficult for those families who lost an immediate family member to make the necessary shift from active mourning their family member (father, child, sibling) to joyously celebrating Independence Day.

• In last week's The Jerusalem Post weekend magazine it was reported that non-married [married = common-law or 'sanctified'] partners of killed soldiers are not recognized for IDF services -- survivor benefits and more problematically psychological assistance -- to assist them cope with their loss. Only direct family members are entitled to services. While a non-profit organization has been established (with some assistance from the IDF), the struggle of significant others remains a serious and not fully recognized issue. Even those who later married continue to carry the scars of the death of their earlier lover for many years.

What does all this mean? To me, it seems that the country has its own set of rigid expectations and that anything or anyone who falls outside the drawn lines is left to fend for themselves.

It's 1, 2, 3 Strikes ... [2]

During the last month or so, there has hardly been a day without one strike or another.

• The post-elementary teachers are on strike for a better deal with the Finance Ministry, who after all, they are among the lowest paid teachers in the developed world and lowest paid workers (even assuming an advanced degree and 15 years experience) in the country -- less than 5,000 NIS a month [~USD 1,250] or USD 15,000/year.
• The Port of Ashdod was on strike.
• The Israel Electric Company against the proposed, and now legislated, privatization plan which would ruin their benefit of free (and unlimited) electricity.
• The university students are/were on strike to protest the government committee that is expected to call for a tuition increase (to cover the shortfall created by the diminishing government contribution to higher education).
• The National Insurance Institutions (social security) because they wanted better working conditions including money.
• On and on ...

Tomorrow is a threatened nation-wide strike called by the Histradrut [the National Federation of Workers] to protest the lack of payment (salaries), some up to 10 months, of various municipal employees throughout Israel. The government issued a number of promises to address the issue. However, some 1,000 people remain waiting for their paycheck for 10 months. Lots of excuses are offered by the government -- the ministries of finance, interior, PMO (responsible for the local religious councils) -- but, of course, little action. Ironically, this group -- many of whom worked in Arab (read non-Jewish) areas -- has continued to show up and did their work despite not being paid (kind of silly too). I really feel for their plight and it's a real embarrassment that the government and the country has allowed it to continue this long.

Unfortunately, like all the other strikes I'm not sure the actions are being targeted appropriately. I mean, if you're trying to influence an insensitive government, why inconvenience the general public? The public, also unfortunately, has little if any influence on government action. Among some of the reasons is that no Member of Knesset [MK] is directly responsible to any geographically identified population. They're completely reliant on some part of their party -- the central committee or in some cases the entire membership who voted for the party election list.

If the target is the government, why not withhold services that government and its ministers require? Collect the garbage, but instead of bringing it to the dump, place it on the lawn of the nearest Minister or the Prime Minister's residence or the Knesset grounds. Have each of the municipal employees call/fax the government inquiring when their back paychecks will be direct deposited. Encourage the government aides to refuse to do their work, thus making the Minister do all the work. Picket them at their homes. Generally, make their lives so disagreeable that they feel it necessary to resolve the workers' issues quickly and in good faith.

And, yes, I know it's all just a (pipe) dream.

It's 1,2, 3 strikes... [1]

For the last week or so Esterina Tartman, a MK from the Israel Beitanu party and a close confidant of its leader Avigdor Lieberman, has been the subject of a number of exposes.

1. When an Arab member of the Knesset [MK] from Labor was about to be appointed to the cabinet, she expressed her opinion that Arabs have no place in the government, since Israel is a Jewish state -- "I am in favor of a Jewish and democratic state," and suggesting that the appointment of Ghaleb Majadele was tantamount to "swinging a gigantic axe at the tree trunk called Zionism and the Jewish state." Her racist comment didn't garner her any positive feedback/support from the general public.
2. It was disclosed that several years ago, she applied for (and was granted) disabled status from the results of a traffic accident by the NII. She claimed that she was only able to work four hours per day. She also received a settlement from the insurance company.
3. This week it was disclosed that she lied about her academic credentials. She doesn't hold a BA (in economics from Bar Ilan U) or an MBA (from Hebrew U).

With a shuffle of the cabinet, Israel Beitanu received an additional cabinet post (Min of Tourism) and the chairship of the Knesset Finance Committee (whose current chair has refused to set down despite his party refusal to join the government coalition -- but that's another story). Tartman was designated as the party's choice for the Tourism post.

With the revelation of her falsified resume, her "star" had fallen. Late yesterday, after it had become clear that her candidacy had garnered opposition within the Knesset and she might not get elected, she announced that she was withdrawing her name from consideration. Another party member replaced her.

What was most interesting here is not that it was another sign of how corrupt the government or the political system is but, how Tartman and Lieberman expressed shock and outrage how "the media" treated them. Instead of expressing contrition at their misdeeds, they accused the media (and I assume also the public) for their "witch hunt". For Lieberman, her misrepresentations on her resume were no big deal and an innocent mistake.

Who's Lieberman fooling? It was calculated act. Her "problem" is that she and the party got caught. It would do the party, the government and the country good if its leaders were actually above ethical (never mind legal) reproach and when they 'fail', they acknowledge their error in judgement, preferably before it becomes media fodder. However, even after it's reported accepting responsibility for their behavior would also be appreciated.

Lastly, it's another reason for reforming the electoral system. See David Horwitz, Editor's Notes in last Friday's (23 Feb) Jerusalem Post.

A kiss is NOT just a kiss ...

This afternoon, the court announced its verdict for Haim Ramon, the ex-Justice Minister. He was found guilty of preforming an indecent act by (french) kissing a female soldier attached to the Prime Minister's Office. The entire country is in shock. The guilty verdict wasn't really expected. A matter-of-fact, the judgement (written decision) wrote that the accused's version wasn't at all acceptable or even logical. It was a stinging rebuke to Ramon and it may not allow him to launch a reasonable, or successful, appeal. Sentencing will occur at some later date. What seems clear is that this conviction, no matter what the actual sentence, signals the end of his political career (nevermind, any hope of returning to serving as Justice Minister or any other cabinet position).

After watching a number of news programs with their "talking heads", I'm left feeling confused about whether it was a good decision -- something to celebrate -- or, a real setback to the advance of women and the law.

On the one hand, the act was reprehensible and deserving of some kind of penalty/punishment. He certainly overstepped his authority and took advantage of a young woman (whether or not, as Ramon claimed she had consented to, or even encouraged, his advances).

On the other hand, I'm not sure of it was worth of being convicted of a criminal act. As Yael Dayan, a former Member of the Knesset and Chair of the Women's Status Committee where she was responsible for creating and advancing feminist legislation, said on one of the programs I watched, the act fell more into the area of harassment than criminal indecency. She also differentiated his situation from that of Moshe Katsav. In the former case [Ramon] his indictment didn't create an avalanche of additional complaints of harassment/indecency unlike what happened with Katsav. That suggests that it was an isolated (individual) act.

While I'm not sure Ramon's behavior with this woman was an isolated act, it also wasn't part of a serial behavior of sexually harassing women (which can't be said for Katsav).

What I do sense is, Ramon is being punished for the poor behavior of other, past, politicians -- including Yael Dayan's father Moshe -- who engaged in numerous affairs during their terms of office. It has become a case of bad timing. He was caught in a paradigm shift as the public mores have shifted towards greater sensitivities of women.

That in itself, is something to celebrate even at the cost of destroying the career of a beloved -- if the public expressions of support and shock by other public and political figures are to believed -- public official.

The government you deserve

Last Friday's [12 January] New York Times' Letters of the Editor was devoted solely to George Bush's national address as he called for an increase -- for an undefined temporary period --- of some 21,500 more American troops (soldiers). While, I certainly agree with many of the criticisms made of the President and his Administration policies, I find it strange the volume of of the outcry. Has his recent pronouncements represented a large change from those during his first term? Has he gone back on campaign promises/commitments made either during 2000 or 2004? Has the administration changed its approach to governing, and then reversed itself, that is disturbing the American people? What's changed, that now people are upset with the Bush government and its policies in general, and the war in Iraq in particular?

Comments from the letters like:

The president, in his speech to the nation on Wednesday, said, ''For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.''
If the safety of the American people had been considered in advance by a competent president, we would have never mounted the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. [J. Knowles, CA]

America is well aware that Mr. Bush's strategy for war in Iraq was fundamentally flawed from Day 1. This new plan is no exception.
The newly elected Congress and Senate must find a way to stop him. [M. Haskett, TX]

More than 20,000 additional troops are being put in harm's way on the say-so of one man. Isn't that more characteristic of a dictatorship than a democracy?
Why isn't Congress mounting a more vigorous effort to block money for this ruinous war?
Our senators and representatives cannot allow George W. Bush to try to salvage his failed presidency over the maimed and dead bodies of our men and women in uniform. [G.G. Weiss, NY]

One letter hit the nail on the head:

The fact that America re-elected this self-absorbed, limited politician puts the blame not just on him but also on the American people. There is no glory in ''staying the course'' so that President Bush can prove he was right.

Which leaves me with a few quotes to end:

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Every country has the government it deserves"-Joseph de Maistre (1753 - 1821) Written on August 15, 1811

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve - Alexis de Tocqueville

A lonely bush in Iraq

Last night's address by President GW Bush was another example of how the current White House is tone deaf to the voices of Americans. It was also an example of 'if force doesn't immediately solve the problem, apply more force.' Instead of presenting a new strategy for addressing the Iraqi quagmire and how America can help set Iraq (and America) on the right course, it was an exercise of flogging a dead horse. While his words sound nice, the implication of his speech is "same old, same old". Only this time he's added a few twists.

Dan Froomkin, writing in the Washington Post is quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists. In yesterday's article [Tuesday] he discussed what GWB could make of his address. In Wednesday's, which I assume was actually written prior to the address, he offered a critique of the expected points to be made.

From my perspective, Bush's address failed the "Froomkin test."

Both the results of the mid-term elections in November and the current opinion polls provide a clear message. The war in Iraq needs to be fought without outside (read American) military forces. The refusal of the administration to acknowledge the errors that got the US so deeply into the war and their refusal to acknowledge the generally accepted 'reality' of the situation in Iraq and, thus, creating a withdrawal plan for the US troops, coupled with their general (typical) arrogance to either engage Americans (especially those who don't agree with them) in a real discussion/debate about American priorities or listen to actual experts and the American people, has left the administration with an abysmal approval rating and a dearth of trust. The "bubble president" is finding himself behind his own brick wall (dare I see 'iron curtain'?). He seems to have created his own little world and reality, which psychologists refer to as "psychosis."

Instead of proposing to send more US troops to address the civil war/ insurgency in Iraq, he should have publicly acknowledged that it's the American presence that is the driving force behind the deterioration in Iraq. Redeployment of the active forces to outside of Iraq is in the best interests of the US:

1. It will take away the raison d'etre for many of the insurgent groups. Instead of uniting against their common enemy -- America -- they will be forced to address their differences and hopefully become convinced of working together to create a peaceful Iraq (maybe even a democratic one).
2. It will allow the US to free up its military forces to address other conflict areas or promoted "American interests". Say, confronting rouge nuclear countries like North Korea or Iran, promoting global security like places like Africa (Darfur and Somalia), confronting international terrorism (al Qaeda et al) and prepare for the new world order -- the growth of China and Asia as well as assisting in emergency situations (e.g. natural disasters like the tsunami of 2004).
3. It could help reduce the anti-Americanism and general anti-West feelings throughout the developing world.

"Staying the course", or whatever the current Bush phrase is, will only leave America and its articulated values weaker.

Hopefully, the Congress will exercise its constitutional powers of oversight and help keep America strong until the end of the Bush presidency.

Rotten to the core?

The level of corruption in Israel political life and the government itself has become epidemic.

• In today's news it was reported that the Finance Minister, Avraham Hirschson, is under police investigation for complicity in a case of embezzlement at a non-profit organization during his term as the Chair of the Board. (They are trying to determine if duly reported the crime to the proper authorities.)
• A few days ago, it was announced that the Tax Authority leadership plus the Bureau Chief of the Prime Minister's Office along with a few businesspeople (one of whom was the brother of the PMO chief) were under investigation for bribery.
• A week or so before that, it was announced that Inspector-General's point-person for examining government corruption, a former high ranking police officer, was done under investigation for corruption. It's alleged that he was in contact with the [Ariel] Sharon family offering to allow the accusation of corruption to die in exchange for being appointed the head of the Israeli Police.
• The criminal trail of former (Justice) Minister Haim Ramon for sexual harassment is winding up.
• The decision to indict President Moshe Katsav, who's been beleaguered by accusations of sexual harassment, corruption and abuse of power for the last six months or so, is expected shortly. If indicted, he promised to resign. However, recently there's been some backtracking (mostly via his lawyers and friends).
• The Chair of the Knesset Security & Foreign Affairs Committee, Tzachi Hanegbi, continues to be under investigation for his involvement in corruption (patronage appointments) and financial irregularities at a charity he headed. He has not resigned his position.
• There's the on-going investigations into Avigdor Lieberman (currently the Minister for Strategic Initiatives) which has been going on for the last eight years or so (which might have been closed) and the possibility of a new one. He's not a really popular character, except for those who vote for his party, so it's also possible some of the criminal accusations are politically motivated.
• Then, there's the ongoing investigations into the activities of the Prime Minister himself! Ehud Olmert (not a favourite of mine!) has been in and out of court over various accusations of corruption. Now there are two more police investigations about his behaviour as Minister of Industry & Small Business and as the Finance Minister. We'll see where they lead to.

Then there are the past accusations, which lead to convictions:

• During Ariel Sharon's last term as PM, there were a number of accusations. His son, Omri, was sentenced to a jail term. His other son, Gilad may also have been sentenced.
• Naomi Blumenthal was convicted of bribery/breach of trust for paying for Likud party activist to stay in a hotel, and then lying about it, to have them vote for her during a primary election. Upon indictment, Ariel Sharon fired her from the cabinet.
• Aryeh Deri was convicted a number of years ago for accepting kickbacks for arranging land deals, while he was the Minister of Interior and responsibility for the Israel Land Authority.

I'm sure I've missed (or mistaken) several other incidents of corruption. And above list only represents national public figures. The cities and regional councils have been excluded.

There seems to be a permanent cloud of suspicion of corruption hanging over the Israeli governments and public service. What's going on?

A large part of the problem is the lack of accountability to the public. Politicians are beholden to their political party and especially to the central committee who votes for them and assigns them their party ranking on the ballot. So, instead of having to compete for the trust of a specific geographic population, who could challenge them to perform more ethically and serve their needs, politicians do what they must to convince their party of of their worth to be placed high on the party list. (Only the Labour Party has an open primary among its members to determine the party list. The rest of parties determine their list by central committee).

Another factor is the historical dependence on the government to determine national priorities. It seems that the government, especially the Knesset, is the central national institution. There's a tiny voluntary sector and a vocal extremist polity to challenge the government to adjust its priorities to better reflect the larger concerns of the Israeli public.

The net result is a country ruled by elderly party leaders -- who've done their duty to the party and refuse to step aside for the younger leaders, unless forced -- who seem interested in advancing their personal agenda, even at the expense of the larger Israeli society.

Saddam hung to dry

The hanging of Saddam Hussein last Saturday morning may have been a momentous occasion, however, I'm still not sure it was a positive step for Iraq, the region as a whole, or the world. What was the rush to kill (execute) Saddam Hussein? His death spells the end to all of his court trails and the possibility of having all the actors -- including Saddam -- of the 30 year reign of terror held accountable for their actions and involvement (by having them blame Saddam for every thing). Several questions remain:

1. Iraq

• Has all the information about Saddam's personal role been made public?
• Does his death create obstacles/problems for effectively continuing with all public trails of other government/military figures?
• Is his death an opportunity for a cessation of sectarian violence or the catalyst for increasing it?
• Will this strengthen the Malaki government or further weaken it?
• How will Iraq deal with it? Is this the beginning of the end (or Iraq) or the start of building a stable Iraq?

2. US

• Is his death enough for GW Bush to declare victory and start an immediate pull back (at minimum) or full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq?
• Does this enhance (or detract) from GWB's standing in America and the rationale for invading Iraq?
• How will the military situation change because of this?
• Does this advance American interests and international standing or, is it another thing to add to the (growing) list of American foreign policy blunders?

3. The region

• How does this death effect the influence of other regional players, especially Syria and Iran? What about Saudi Arabia?
• Is this a blow or a boon to Islamic terrorist/jihadi groups, especially Al Qada?
• How does this affect the Lebanon and the Arab (Palestinian)-Israeli conflicts?
• Is this a setback or an advance for democratization?

4. The world

• Is this a blow or a boon for international terrorism and Islamic jihadism and sectarianism?
• Does this provide a window of opportunity to internationalize the conflict; i.e. greater involvement for the U.N. and other international organizations?

Personally, I'm not that sanguine that his death will create the necessary conditions for "solving", nevermind, stabilizing the situation to let the Iraqis run their country by themselves. The country is too weak to withstand all the foreign interests seeking to influence Iraqi policy and life. The US administration's poor post-war planning -- immediate and otherwise -- allowed chaos and other foreign influences to take hold that the civil war will be a fact of life for the near term (at least 2-3 years). Unless the US, and particularly GWB, announces a realistic and timely (close to immediate) timetable for the removal of their troops from Iraq, the situation will get worse before it gets better.

Iraq and the Middle East: The Baker-Hamilton Report

To be fair, I have yet to read either the Executive Summary or the full report. (I doubt I read the full report.)

If the purpose of commissioning the bi-partisan report was to provide cover for the GW Bush administration to change course in how the war is being conducted (and by extension devising or suggesting a series of possible exit strategies) then the reaction of the President suggests that it's a failure. If its purpose was to deflect criticism until after the 2006 mid-term elections, then it's a partial success. The electoral blow of losing the House and the Senate doesn't seem to have "popped" the bubble around Bush. While his language -- now he seems to be promoting bipartisanship -- has changed slightly, and he has replaced an ideologically driven Rumsfeld with a "realist" Gates, I fear little has really changed in the White House and, therefore, nothing will come out of the report other than using up a lot of paper and ink printing up the requisite number of published copies. Unless there's a real commitment on the part of the Bush Administration to find a real way to get out of Iraq, the situation in Iraq and for the "American enterprise" will continue to erode. It'll be a game of self-deception and continuing senseless bloodshed. That it's coming from an administration whose top leaders consciously avoided action in the last American fiasco, the Vietnam War.

One of the centre planks of the report is to address, and possible even resolve, the other conflicts in the region; the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict, the situation in Lebanon, under the assumption that they are driven the Iraqi insurgency (civil war, anarchy -- you choose your favorite term). While it's true the region is highly unstable and conflictive and that each individual conflict has undercurrent of the other regional conflicts, it's naive to think that resolving anyone specific conflict (despite the talk of many of the Arab governments and elites and their supporters) will launch a domino effect as the other conflicts are resolved in its wake. The suggestion is more an act of desperation than inspiration.

The Arab/Palestinian-Israel conflict is the favorite "whipping boy" for the Arabs. It helps the governments and many people divert their attention from the desperate situation they're living in by using Israel as a scapegoat. Denial and avoidance are wonderful psychological defense mechanisms, however, as a way to live and improve their life (style) is dysfunctional. This is not to say that greater outside attention needs to be devoted to encouraging both (all) side to act responsibly and act in good faith to create the necessary conditions for resolving the conflict and have both sides live in peace and cooperation.

The Lebanon's crises has been ongoing since its establishment in the 1920s. The Civil War of the 1980s, and today's political crisis is driven by power plays cloaked in sectarian terms -- Shia, Maronite, Druze; Amal vs Hezbollah; pro-Syrian vs independents ... Resolving this crisis will certainly help stabilize the region. However, beyond reducing Syrian influence (my bias and hope), it'll do nothing to resolving the Iraqi situation and quagmire.

At issue for me are:

• Reversing the anti-West (read US) animosity.
• Restoring the American prestige around the world, but especially in the region and among Moslems and Arabs.
• Getting out of Iraq so attention can be devoted to real issues like the nuclearization of Iran and North Korea, the rise of Asia and China and India in particular, the weak American economy (and the dropping value of the US dollar) partially generated by the ballooning deficit, the domestic issues like healthcare, social welfare, education ...

My faith in government has been greatly weaken recently (more in another post). The report has done nothing to cause me to think the trend is reversing itself. Too bad!

Moment of truth

Tonight we'll see how much American is committed to change or wants to continue to 'follow the yellow brick road'. Should the Democrats take control of the Senate and significant control (since they're already expected to gain control) of the House, then we'll know that 'the dream is over' and we're back in Kansas and addressing the real issues of a real world. If not, then I assume that American is interested in living in the dream world of George W Bush and his advisors. In either event, people will get the government they deserve.

For me, it's a no-brainer. Bush is one of the worst presidents in modern American history; he has neither an effective domestic policy nor foreign policy. The moral standing, nevermind, its actual ability to lead the world has been severely eroded under the current administration. It's bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq (with an unwillingly to confront of the dire reality of anomie and 'civil war' there), their eye has been diverted from the other, and major, international trends -- the rise of China, the nuclearization of North Korea and Iran, growing socialist (and anti-American/West) of South America ... . Their slow and equivible reopens to the scandals of human rights violation UNDER their watch at Gitmo, Abu Graib, Iraq, be it accusation of torture, denial legal rights, has placed America and Americans in real danger.

Domestically, the infastructure, particularly socially, has been greatly undermined. Beyond the perception that government isn't there for everyone -- only to assist the already wealthy become wealthier through tax cuts including a repeal of the estate tax -- people don't trust that the government -- the Executive (Presidency) and Legislature (Congress +) -- are out to advance, nevermind protect, the interests of the middle class. The poor are left even more powerless.

Despite the number of disclosures of the lies told by the Administration, I'm not sure that the general public is willing to hold the Bush White House and Republican Congress accountable. Tonight, we'll see.