Abrabanel: Musings on the Jewish condition

In case you missed it, the Iranians are turning aggressive on the psychological front:

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

The strategy seems to be multi-pronged. On the one hand, even if attacked Iran would target Israel alone (so what possible excuse does America have for participating in an attack?):

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

On the other, the full power of a fatwa (which has been mentioned in the past but, strangely, not published) vouches for Iran’s peaceful intentions:

Safavi said that Iran’s nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Surely the cool-headed Obama will understand:

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran’s decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran’s extreme right, which opposes dialogue.

Strengthening that “extreme right” would sure be terrible.

Few people understand Israel’s inner workings – the state, society and economy – better than Tel Aviv University macroeconomist Dan Ben-David. His latest opinion piece shows why he is among the most influential of this country’s public intellectuals.

It bears quoting in full:

The tragic truth of modern Israel
By Dan Ben-David

The current coalition negotiations again raise the tragic truth of modern Israel: For quite a while, it has not been possible to govern in the Holy Land.

The problem is not only that the head of the country’s executive arm is held accountable, but not given the authority to build a cabinet with ministers who know something about the realm of their ministries and who also work for him/her. The problem is not only that Knesset members are not elected personally by voters, which ensures the existence of conflicts of interest between those who determine the party lists and those who actually vote for the lists on election day. The problem is not only the absence of fixed terms of office in the executive and legislative branches, which makes political instability structurally inherent in the current system and precludes long-term planning and vision.

These are just some of the more visual signs of a centrifugal governmental system in which sectoral demands steadily tear apart what remains of the Zionist dream.

In Israel’s current system of government, measures taken to survive politically in the present have a way of determining future reality. For example, it was not possible to remove Israeli citizens from Gaza without paying the political ransom of removing the ultra-Orthodox education stream from the system-wide educational reform that was approved at the time (which has since dissipated in any event, because of the lack of governance in the system).

Similarly, segments of the population with employment rates so low that they are unparalleled in the West are represented by politicians who insist on cementing this situation for eternity. They demand an increase in personal subsidies for each child – which have been shown to encourage extremely high birth rates – that are, in turn, translated into incomes that enable the choice of non-work as a way of life.

Three-quarters of ultra-Orthodox males and Israeli-Arab females of prime working ages (25-54) are not employed, while the rates of non-employment of their spouses are double Western averages. In 1960, only 15 percent of the country’s primary school pupils studied in the ultra-Orthodox and Israeli-Arab educational systems. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, in just four years, the 50 percent barrier will be crossed.

The Knesset

If today’s youth adopt the work habits of their parents, it should be clear that, in another generation or two, the resultant majority of the country’s population will create an untenable financial burden on the minority – who, by no small coincidence, will also be the sole bearers of the national defense burden. And what about the brain drain from Israel, which only accelerates this demographic process? Who is even dealing with this issue?

In the struggle between left and right on keeping parts of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem that contain large Palestinian Arab populations, the current political tiebreakers are constraints that mortgage one demographic future – between Zionists and non-Zionists – for another demographic future, between Jews and Arabs.

A political tiebreaker of a totally different magnitude is needed: A political system in which each of the representatives, from the president down to the last Knesset member, is elected to fixed terms of office directly by the people. Representatives from different towns and regions will have to start looking out for the education that their constituents’ children receive, for jobs and personal security for the people who put them in office, for clean neighborhoods and environmental concerns in the areas that they come from. The accountability for successes and failures will be personal, with a corresponding political price tag.

When they will have to start dealing with the welfare of those who actually voted them into office, the politicians will have a lesser degree of freedom to advocate keeping the biblical Land of Israel instead preserving the health of today’s State of Israel; a lesser degree of freedom to be more concerned about Palestinian Arabs in Nablus and Ramallah than about Israeli Arabs in Taibeh and Rahat; and a lesser degree of freedom to insist on Torah studies as a substitute for, rather than as a complement to, education that facilitates the understanding of modern democracy and provides the tools for working in a global economy.

The total number of seats currently held by the three largest parties – Kadima, Labor and Likud – has already fallen to just half of the Knesset’s total (60 MKs in all). In light of the internal demographic changes that are taking place in Israel, the existing political fringes that represent narrow sectoral interests will become the majority in the Knesset in the near future, and the national perspective toward policy-making will have disappeared from the political scene. These fringes will become the primary boulevards – with each one leading toward the termination of the Zionist dream of a first-world democracy that is the national home of the Jewish people.

The time has come for the leaders of Kadima, Labor and Likud to understand that the country has reached the point of no return. Only the leaders of these three parties still have the combined parliamentary ability to put in place a new democratic system of government by the next elections. This will be the ultimate political tiebreaker that will return to the people the ability to salvage their collective future.

The author teaches economics in the Department of Public Policy at Tel Aviv University.

Tom Gross passes on a fairly credible rumor:

In a report posted this morning on the Iraqi news website Almalaf, diplomatic sources in Beirut are quoted as saying that Hezbollah supreme leader Hassan Nasrallah was poisoned with a deadly chemical last week and that his life was saved by Iranian doctors who were rushed to Lebanon to treat him.

Nasrallah’s medical condition was apparently critical for a number of days, according to the report, but he is now stable.

Almalaf claimed that the sources believed it was “highly likely that the poisoning was an Israeli assassination attempt.” In fact Hezbollah is more hated in Lebanon than in Israel, and any assassination attempt could have stemmed from the many enemies Nasrallah has in Lebanon.

Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia militia which is under the de facto control of the Iranian regime, has denied the report. (In Arabic here; in English here.) But that would not explain why on Monday, the Iranian newspaper Khoursid suddenly reported that Nasrallah’s cousin, Safi al-Din, had been elected to take over Hezbollah in the event that “the Zionists succeed in assassinating Hassan Nasrallah.”

Unbelievable:

The brief stab at the Republican presidential and vice-presidential nominees occurred during a scene when characters Brian (an anthropomorphic dog), Mort (a Rhode Island pharmacist) and Stewie (a super-intelligent toddler) beat up three Nazi officers, in order to steal their uniforms.

“Hey, there’s something on here,” Stewie remarked during the segment, as he noticed an anachronistic McCain/Palin campaign button on his disguise’s lapel. “Huh, that’s weird.”

The show’s creator and the voice behind Brian and Stewie, Seth MacFarlane, is a supporter of McCain’s Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, having donated $2,300 to Obama’s presidential campaign between 2007 and 2008 and tens of thousands to other Democratic causes since 2005.

That’s the gist of an Islamic Republic News Agency report that claims “US Congressmen have made a request to Iranian parliament to hold negotiations with Iranian counterparts.”

After announcing the secret letter – without giving the congressmen’s names – an Iranian parliament spokesman decided to play hard-to-get:

“Due decision will be made in this connection,” the spokesman told IRNA adding that the number of the signatories of the letter is confidential.

The MP added that the request was handed over to Iranian MPs who had attended the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank held in Washington DC on October 13.

Kohkan said that Majlis representatives would consider the request and will make “final decision” about it. “We are not in a hurry to answer the request for the moment,” Kohkan added.

The report, which leaves something to be desired grammar-wise, quickly gets to the point: these unnamed congressmen are allegedly less averse to Iranian aggression than the current American administration:

Meanwhile, Chairman of Parliament Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy Alaeddin Boroujerdi said that the context of the letter is not in concord with the current approach of the US Administration.

He said that the context of the letter does not keep up with the current policy of the United States, highlighting the US anti-Iran propaganda and hostility.

A newspaper in Iran reported that security forces around one of the country’s nuclear sites arrested spy pigeons.

One of the pigeons was caught near a rose water production plant in the city of Kashan in Isfahan province, the report cited an unnamed informed source as saying, adding that some metal rings and invisible strings were attached to the bird.

“Early this month, a black pigeon was caught bearing a blue-coated metal ring, with invisible strings,” the source was quoted as saying of the second pigeon.

The Iranian government denied the report, but it never denied last year’s news that its security forces arrested 14 squirrels for the same crime.

Herb Keinon settles the speculation around the Arab League peace initiative. It’s a great article for context:

Senior Jerusalem officials dismissed on Sunday a sudden surge of interest both here and abroad in the Arab Peace Initiative, saying it was a function of both a diplomatic process that has stalled and the transition periods in Israel, the US and the Palestinian Authority.

“And the Saudis have an interest in pushing this out there now, to put on a ‘constructive face’ with which to greet the new US president.”

Now, the official said, “the negotiations with the Palestinians are stalled, coalition talks are under way and various ideas are thrown out there.

“It’s also Succot; there is not much going on, so half-formed ideas that are discussed in the framework of coalition talks get a lot more traction than they normally would.”

Finally, the official said, “There is no government to talk to about this. Not here, not in the PA and not in the US.”

It’s a shame, because “the plan seems to be all the rage in recent days,” Keinon notes.

President Shimon Peres reportedly talked with Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef about the need to go for a regional agreement, not just a bilateral one with Syria or the Palestinians, while King Abdullah II of Jordan told Spain’s El Pais daily that the plan provided a genuine opportunity for a peace settlement.

In Britain, The Guardian newspaper ran a story entitled “Time to resurrect the Arab peace plan.”

Labor Party head Ehud Barak also got into the fray, telling Army Radio on Sunday he discussed the plan recently with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni during their coalition negotiations.

We’re not sure what to make of this Jerusalem Post report that Ehud Barak is contemplating new peace discussions based on the Arab League’s Saudi initiative, since, he says, “We have interests in common with moderate Arab elements on Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas.”

Barak even said President Shimon Peres agrees, and that he mentioned the idea to the likely next PM Tzipi Livni.

The Saudi initiative, in its day, came as a way to take the initiative away from Ariel Sharon after the Israeli PM had begun to forcibly dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructures and sideline Yasser Arafat’s regime. Israelis didn’t take it seriously then – why would Arab states step forward for peace when the terror has been defeated, but remain silent while it raged?

What’s Barak’s game? Is it for domestic consumption? He’s got a bit more than a year to elections, and he heads the main left-wing party.

Could he be serious? Could he be calculating that the Saudis, Egyptians, perhaps even Syrians are so scared of Iran they’ll make a genuine peace with the Jewish state?

Benjamin Balint is brilliant as always in a review of David Grossman’s Writing in the Dark. An excerpt from the review:

[Grossman] fears “that after decades of spending most of our energies, our thoughts and attention and inventiveness, our blood and our life and our financial means, on protecting our external borders, fortifying and safeguarding them more and more – after all this, we may be very close to becoming a suit of armor that no longer contains a knight, no longer contains a human.”

At its best, then, Grossman’s Israel is but “a clumsy and awkward imitation of Western countries.” At its worst, which is more often, it is a “disaster zone,” a “tortured country,” “a nation whose intimate and permanent interlocutor is death.”

There is of course something to be said for a voice of conscience that urges us to strip away the layers of indifference and detachment that dull us to the suffering of others and to recover our moral sensitivities. But neither Grossman’s shrill self-condemnation, which sounds so close to the condemnations regularly heard from Israel’s self-declared enemies, nor the stale tradition which it continues, supplies that voice.

The reason for this is twofold. First, excessive political pessimism is as much a mark of escapism as Pollyannaish optimism. Second, self-examination ceases to edify the moment it crosses into self-disgust. Self-laceration is not a form of self-knowledge.

Stendhal once compared introducing politics in a novel to firing a pistol in the middle of a concert. There is something vulgar about it. But Writing in the Dark illustrates the opposite kind of vulgarity. In literature, as Grossman says, the desire to “know the Other from within him – even if that Other is our enemy” is a valuable imperative. In politics, however, a first duty is to make the elemental distinction between your own virtues and your all-too-real enemies’ vices. If David Grossman’s latest book is any indication, some Israeli intellectuals – to their detriment and to ours – have not yet learned how.

We recommend reading Balint’s review in full.

For a few seconds while reading that Ban Ki-Moon in a report to the Security Council formally called for dismantling nongovernmental Lebanese militias, we were delighted. Following on the heels of a similar statement by the German Free Democratic Party’s Dirk Niebel, it boded well for a general trend – perhaps a new international willingness to challenge the organization that is quickly destroying Lebanese freedom and prosperity from the inside.

Ban even called Hizbullah “a fundamental challenge to the government’s attempts to consolidate the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese state.” That is, at least, until it disarmed.

But then we read farther down:

Ban, in his report, said in addition to establishing diplomatic relations, Lebanon and Syria must also take concrete steps to implement other agreements reached during these meetings, including “joint activity to improve security arrangements along that border.”

And:

In the report, Ban called on Lebanese parties to immediately halt all efforts to acquire and build paramilitary capabilities.

That’s when we realized: this report isn’t a new realization, but a fig-leaf for the UN’s total helplessness. All parties should immediately stop building up their strength? That’s not just stupid, it’s unnatural. And a pointless statement when there isn’t a damn thing anyone is planning on doing to enforce it.