Category Archives: Israel

Israeli Press

My first quote in an Israeli newspaper is here.

My Favorite Song of the Moment

A beautiful song from the Israeli, cult musical “The Band” about a singing troupe in the military during the war with Egypt in the early 1970s. Here is the film’s theme song, and here is the most popular song.

Daily Reading

What (formerly) everyday items have disappeared in the last decade? The effects of unemployment are devastating — not only to the person who lost his job, but also to those around him. Making sense of modern anti-Semitism. How to live happily on 75-percent less money. The cultural rise and decline of “The Simpsons” over the past twenty years.

Red Sox vs. Yankees

RISHON LEZION, Israel — The Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees will play on Opening Day on April 4. I am eager for revenge because, after the World Series victory by the Evil Empire, I owe a friend a steak dinner at El Gaucho in Israel.

Outdated Checks

Image

JERUSALEM — Great Britain might phase-out checks in the next several years:

The board of the UK Payments Council, which oversees payments strategy, is meeting to discuss whether the cheque clearing system could end by 2018.

Cheques, first written 350 years ago, are widely regarded by experts as being in terminal decline.

However, the failure to find a suitable replacement has meant no date has yet been set for the system to end.

Not only are checks in danger, printed money itself might become extinct. This worries me for two reasons: an increased cost to the consumer, and less anonymity in general.

When people pay with a credit or debit card, roughly three percent of the purchase price goes to the issuer of the piece of plastic. (Think of it as a “service” or “convenience” fee, but it’s really just an ingenious way for banks to generate a lot of profit because the cost to process the transaction is essentially zero.)

As a result, business frequently raise their prices to pass along that cost to the consumer. For example, I once bought a girlfriend here flowers at a small kiosk with my Bank Leumi debit card because I had forgotten to bring cash. The owner simply told me: “Five shekels (roughly one dollar) more.” Imagine this exchange occurring in every sale throughout the world. If checks no longer exist and a suitable alternative is not found, then a reliance on plastic would lead to a general increase in prices.

Still, as the article mentions, banks are looking at electronic means including mobile phones through which purchasing can occur. While the cost to perform the transaction would be next to nothing, private commerce would no longer be anonymous. There would always be a digital, paper trail.

Obviously, I do not depend on cash as a means to buy drugs, sell them, or engage in any nefarious activities like organized crime, but I do not like the idea of the possibility that someone, somewhere could theoretically see every item that I buy and sell as well as possibly have access to my private, financial data. Hackers will always find a way.

If Cellcom, for example, would own my Israeli cell phone, then Cellcom would be responsible for the security of my financial transactions processed through and stored on the device. And if the electronic safeguards prove costly to them, then I might have the cost passed along to me anyway.

Elsewhere: Many companies are fighting the credit-card fees. Good for them!

Daily Reading

The burst of the agriculture bubble in the 1980s might provide some economic lessons for today. A computer model could predict events in the world’s hot-spots. Pakistan might implode. Han Solo and game theory in “Star Wars.” New Scientist magazine “proves” that dogs are better than cats — but only by a hair.

Israel and Britain

ImageJERUSALEM — Relations between England and Israel might not be as warm as one might think:

One of Britain’s most eminent historians has assailed the country’s policy towards Israel, questioning why Queen Elizabeth II has visited a host of despotic regimes but has never made an official visit to the Holy Land.

Speaking at the Anglo-Israel Association dinner in central London last week, Andrew Roberts suggested that the Foreign Office had a de facto ban on royal visits to Israel.

“The true reason of course, is that the FO [Foreign Office] has a ban on official royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged,” he said. “As an act of delegitimization of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists.”

Roberts, whose work includes biographies of Churchill and Chamberlain, as well as Hitler and Roosevelt and a look at the relationship between Napoleon and Wellington, said that Britain had been at best “a fair-weather friend” to Israel.

I am not entirely surprised that foreign ministries — including the U.S. State Department in most administrations — tend to be more Arabist than sympathetic to Israel. International relations is like a chess game, only perhaps three-dimensional and with hundreds of sides. It is realpolitik in its most-pure form. With the number of Arab and Muslim countries outnumbering Israel by dozens to one and since many of them have oil — a resource that can bring the West to its knees — the bias is at least an understandable reality. (Conversely, defense ministries are generally more supportive of Israel, for obvious reasons.)

Moreover, the United Kingdom has a mixed history with Israel in the recent past. After World War I, Britain gained control of a large part of the Middle East including the region known as Palestine. Over the next several decades, the country had to deal with Zionists pursuing independence — and some extreme factions did things like bomb the King David Hotel — as well as an Arab population that became increasingly unruly and prone to rioting. Eventually, the United Kingdom essentially threw up its hands and said the diplomatic equivalent of, “Thank you, that’s enough, we’re sick of this. We’re going home.” (Remember, the country was also dealing with Mahatma Ghandi-led turmoil in India at the time, and the post-World War II cost of empire was becoming too high.) After the British left, the Arabs in Palestine rejected a U.N. offer to partition the land, the Jews declared an independent State of Israel, and the neighboring, Arab countries invaded. The rest is modern, Middle East history.

If present trends continue, it is likely that relations between England and Israel will only become worse. Anti-Semitism in Britain and elsewhere is increasing. (See here for a documentary by Channel 4 in England.) A U.K. court has issued an arrest warrant for former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for Israel’s actions during the war with Gaza last year. The number of extremist Muslims in Britain is increasing. The trends present in a country’s population usually filter upwards towards the government over time.

On a related issue, the author mentioned in the article also reportedly made other comments that will hopefully not fall on deaf ears:

Roberts, whose current book The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War reached No. 2 on the Sunday Times best-seller list, also attacked those who accuse Israel of responding “disproportionately” to provocation.

“William Hague [a Conservative MP] called for Israel to adopt a proportionate response in its struggle with Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006, as though proportionate responses ever won any victories against fascists,” he said.

“In the Second World War, the Luftwaffe killed 50,000 Britons in the Blitz, and the Allied response was to kill 600,000 Germans – 12 times the number and hardly a proportionate response, but one that contributed mightily to victory. Who are we therefore to lecture the Israelis on how proportionate their responses should be?”

He then questioned how Britain would respond to similar provocations faced by Israel.

“Very often in Britain, especially when faced with the overwhelmingly anti-Israeli bias that is endemic in our liberal media and the BBC, we fail to ask ourselves what we would do placed in the same position?

“The population of the UK is 63 million – nine times that of Israel. In July 2006, to take one example entirely at random, Hizbullah crossed the border of Lebanon into Israel and killed eight patrolmen and kidnapped two others, and that summer fired 4,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel which killed a further 43 civilians.

“Now, if we multiply those numbers by nine to get the British equivalent, just imagine what we would not do if a terrorist organization based as close as Calais were to fire 36,000 rockets into Sussex and Kent, killing 387 British civilians, after killing 72 British servicemen in an ambush and capturing a further 18?

“I put it to you that there is absolutely no lengths to which our government would not go to protect British subjects under those circumstances, and quite right, too. So why should Israel be expected to behave any differently?”

Roberts is absolutely correct. But I will go a step further: the phrase “proportionate response” in military terms does not mean what most people and journalists think. (Dwight Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, was ultimately responsible for the firebombing of the German city of Dresden during World War II that killed many civilians. Should he have been tried later for war crimes?) Moreover, Israel’s intentions in the war against Hamas were morally sound while those of the terrorist group were not.

Elsewhere: Isi Leibler writes that Europe has forsaken Israel.

Foreign Policy

The magazine looks at Hizbollah’s “halal [sexual] hookups” and whether Afghanistan will become President Obama’s Vietnam.

Newspaper Politics

ImageJERUSALEM — So I was unfolding the weekend papers to read over Shabbat when the insert pictured above dropped out of the Jerusalem Post. It was a printed copy of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, the two English-language newspapers in Israel are the Post and the English version of Ha’aretz, which is one of the oldest publications in the country. But, unlike newspapers in the United States and like those in England, each one has a definite political and religious bent. Ha’aretz is for left-wing, usually-secular readers while the Post is for right-wingers who are often religious. The respective choices of op-ed columnists make these distinctions clear, but frequently the words and tone of articles — and even the news articles themselves that are chosen to be published — hint at the bias as well. If you want to attempt to reach a “fair and balanced” view of the complex issues in the Middle East, start by reading — or at least skimming — both. (In addition, there are dozens of religious, daily and weekly newspapers for nearly every preference a believer might have.)

Out of curiosity, I checked Ha’aretz to see if the U.N.’s advertisement was inserted there as well. Nope. Clearly, the United Nations wanted to send an obvious message to the conservatives readers of the Post. (Although it is possible that Ha’aretz wanted too much money for the insert.)

Image

What I found interesting was the contact masthead at the bottom of the advertisement:

Image

The author is the “Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” As I wrote recently, there is no such thing as “occupied Palestinian territory.” Moreover, the two UNHCR offices listed were in Ramallah in the West Bank and in the Nasser Area in the Gaza Strip. Perhaps if the United Nations had an office in Sderot, where families have been enduring incoming rockets from Hamas on almost a daily basis, then the organization would be less biased.

War on Christmas (in Israel)

Image

My blog –including this and all posts — has moved here. Please update all links, RSS feeds, and bookmarks.

RISHON LEZION, Israel — In the United States, the so-called “War on Christmas” is commonly known as a political movement by the Religious Right.

Well, the Jewish state is seeing the flip side of the religious coin — to keep Christmas “out”:

The “Lobby for Jewish values” this week began operating against restaurants and hotels that plan to put up Christmas trees and other Christian symbols ahead of Christmas and the civil New Year.

According to the lobby’s Chairman, Ofer Cohen, they have received backing by the rabbis, “and we are even considering publishing the names of the businesses that put up Christian symbols ahead of the Christian holiday and call for a boycott against them.”

Fliers and ads distributed among the public read, “The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity.

“You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people’s tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity.”

The Jerusalem Rabbinate also works each year to ensure restaurants and hotels receiving kosher certification from the Jerusalem Religious Council do not put up Christian symbols.

According to a senior official in the kashrut department, this is done each year consensually, but that businesses which do not meet this requirement may find their kashrut certificate revoked.

I was on my way to a New Year’s Eve party in a local pub last year when I stopped in a kiosk. To my surprise, the convenience store was decked out in decorations that would normally be seen at Christmas in the United States. And then I remembered that the owners of the kiosk were Christians who had emigrated from the Soviet Union under Israel’s Law of Return, which allows anyone who has at least one Jewish grandparent to become an automatic, Israeli citizen even it that person is not Jewish himself. Since I had always been friendly with them when I lived in Rishon Lezion, I posed for a picture.

Image

The Israeli city of Rishon Lezion is nicknamed “Russian Lezion” for a reason — sometimes you are more likely to hear Russian than Hebrew in the city center. As a result, there are more than a few shops with Christmas items.

Image

That night, I went to the pub for the New Year’s Eve party, and Christmas was a theme, if understated enough in a way that the secular Israelis there might not have known the connotations that a native American would have seen.

Image

The bar was decorated with red balloons and other items of a similar color. More than a few bartenders and guests wore Santa hats and similar items. After everyone fired flares at midnight, a regular patron dressed as Santa Claus sat on a chair behind the bar and threw gifts into the crowd (see the picture at the top of the post). I did not want to drag the party down, but I had wanted to ask my friends there if they knew that the color red in Christmas decorations, at least according to what I had heard, symbolizes the blood of Jesus, especially on candy canes.

Although there were a few grumblers in the bar who insisted that everyone should be honoring “Sylvester” with its negative connotations rather than the secular New Year, nearly everyone just wanted to have fun. American Jews grow up in an environment in which they feel alienated during Christmas (how far can one go in participating in holiday activities without appearing to endorse the theological theme?), but those born and raised in Israel never had to deal with the complicated feelings that arise since they grew up in a Jewish state. The clothes and decorations are merely yet another excuse for secular Israelis to throw a party, and they are sufficiently Westernized through television and films to be familiar with the standard holidays and associated themes.

And party they did. The bar was not kosher, so it was in no danger of losing a kashrut (kosher) certificate — especially since Rishon Lezion is relatively far from Jerusalem. But I left with lingering questions. The secular, Westernized celebration of the holiday season — and the rabbinical efforts to clamp down on the phenomenon — is yet another example of one of the central paradoxes facing Israel.

The Jewish state wants to be two things: a Jewish state and a free, democratic state. But what is the solution when these competing priorities conflict? If all Israelis start celebrating Christmas (either as Christians or as secularized revelers), then it will arguably no longer be a Jewish state. If the government bans everyone from having anything to do with the holiday, then it will no longer be a free state.

Elsewhere: A related post on this issue. Hat tip: Dov Bear. Brad Hirschfield writes that these Jews are doing to Christians what Christians did to them centuries ago.

Reading List

It seems that I have a lot of reading for the next few days. These articles look interesting:

From Foreign Policy:

Why is the United States letting jihadists have free reign online?

How Israelis see Barack Obama

How Osama bin Laden escaped Tora Bora while surrounded

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Are more Americans are joining jihad?

High-school civics courses are teaching nation-building — at home

More college students are dropping out because they need to work

Ayn Rand’s growing popularity among U.S. conservatives

The Muslim Public Affairs Council released recommendations on combating extremism among Muslim youth in the United States

From the Asia Times:

Spengler thinks the recent, positive economic statistics are a load of bunk

Other sources:

Michael J. Totten highlights a report that Hizbollah now has dangerous delusions of grandeur

Is the Internet destroying culture and interpersonal relations?

A friend forwarded an article on how twentysomething journalists in the United States are actually less eager to “rock the boat” in regards to new technologies

The Day After Tomorrow” might be more likely than you would like to think

Why an 85-year-old, Israeli man avoided doctors for sixty-five years until he had a heart attack

Only in Israel

JERUSALEM — So I was walking to a book store at the local mall to buy the weekend papers before sundown. At the entrance, I passed through the metal detector and opened my backpack for the guard. Business as usual.

The man behind me was an Arab with a baby in a stroller. Out of laziness — I could tell by the shrug and the look on the his face — the guard told the man to use the other door that had neither a metal detector nor any other security. The guard obviously did not want to bother checking the stroller personally.

If I were in the United States, I would have thought the act was a nice one towards a father with a baby. In Israel, my reaction was: “That would be an easy way for someone to sneak a bomb into a mall!” Then I shrugged and went to buy my papers.

(For the record, I would have thought the same thing if the father had not been an Arab. I just don’t like people bypassing security as a result of laziness.)

Extremism Update

JERUSALEM — A Palestinian was caught Wednesday trying to bring six pipe bombs into the city to carry out a terrorist attack. Jewish settlers set fire to a West Bank mosque today.

(Hat tip: Jewlicious)

Chanukah 2009/5770

ImageJERUSALEM — The Jewish holiday of Chanukah begins at sundown today. Here are two past writings of mine on the topic: Is Chanukah a Right-Wing Holiday? and Chanukah and Christopher Hitchens.

I also wanted to post another original writing. This is a short paper I wrote while I was a master’s student in Jewish Studies at Hebrew College in Boston. Enjoy!

When Secular and Religious Sources Conflict: Jewish Assimilation and the Maccabees

The story of Chanukah, detailed in the non-canonical books of Maccabees as well as in the writings of various secular historians, is one example of how different accounts — religious and secular — can cloud the history and memory of what actually occurred. The story related in Maccabees is essentially one of Jewish civil war. One faction wanted to adopt various ancient Greek customs since that culture was the dominant force in the Middle East (particularly when King Antiochus gained control of Judea). The other side viewed those practices as assimilation and heresy.

The writers of 1 Maccabees, when introducing the story, side with the latter group, portraying those who chose to assimilate as “wicked men” (1 Macc. 1:12) who profane the Sabbath and allow Antiochus to defile the Temple. When the Maccabees won, the writers viewed the victory in hindsight as a triumph of the faithful over the wicked. Right at the beginning of this account of the conflict, the pro-assimilation Judeans actively chose to side with Greek culture without any specific prompting or coercion:

In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they build a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (1 Macc. 1:11-15)

1 Maccabees paints the conflict in stark, black-and-white, religious terms. The fact that the writers portray the pro-assimilation Judeans as wanting to form a new “covenant” with the Greeks is especially damning since, to the Maccabees, the only covenant Jews should have is the one with God that was formed at Sinai.

The ancient historian Josephus Flavius, however, portrayed the account differently. To him, Antiochus originally treated the Jews well because they sided with him during the king’s war against Ptolemy over who would control Judea. To thank the Jews, Antiochus gave them appropriate animals to sacrifice, along with wine, oil, frankincense, silver, flour, wheat, and salt. More significantly, he wrote to Ptolemy to command that “all of that nation live according to the laws of their own country” (Antiquities, Book XII, Chapter III, Part III).

However, Antiochus eventually decided to invade Jerusalem following a failed effort to take Egypt. Josephus writes that the king, in contrast to his earlier policy of toleration, now wanted to impose Greek culture upon the Jews:

[Antiochus] compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. (Antiquities, Book XII, Chapter V, Part IV).

According to Josephus, the punishments for violating Antiochus’ decrees were harsh: “they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses” (ibid).

One of the differences between the accounts in 1 Maccabees and Antiquties is in the motivations they attribute to the Jews who choose to adopt Greek culture. In 1 Maccabees, the Judeans assimilate — for seemingly no other reason than because they were wicked — before Antiochus imposes his harsh rule. In Antiquities, the king forces assimilation onto the Judeans under pain of death, and then some Jews assimilate to save their lives.

This difference is an example of the difficulty in surmising accurate social histories from religious texts. History is written by the victors, and 1 Maccabees is one such case. One of the authors’ purposes was to demonize those Jews who chose to assimilate into Greek culture by adopting some of its practices. Antiochus’ decrees in occupied Jerusalem were of secondary importance. If the writers of 1 Maccabees had stated that the Jews who had adopted Greek customs were coerced, then that statement would have hurt their argument that any Jews who assimilate are inherently wicked.

All writers of history naturally have their personal biases, but authors of religious texts are less interested in communicating objective accounts at all — they want to convince their readers of certain theological points. Persuasion is primary; accuracy is secondary.

Related: The White House’s Chanukah party was criticized politically as well. It seems that nothing can be taken lightly anymore.

Gaza Strip

Journalists frequently describe it as one of the most-dense places on the planet. Anti-Israel activists call it an open-air prison. But is this true?

(Hat tip: Michael J. Totten)

Gilad Shalit

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government is likely to trade more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one soldier held by Hamas in Gaza even though it seems completely illogical. Here are several political, historical, and religious reasons why.

On the Jewish-Girl Fetish

ImageMy blog –including this and all posts — has moved here. Please update all links, RSS feeds, and bookmarks.

Seventh in a series of essays

JERUSALEM — Details magazine looks at Jewish girls as the erotic fascination of the moment:

It seems that America can’t get enough smoking-hot Semitic tush lately.

In a recent poll on the porn blog Fleshbot, “Jewish girls” ranked second among kinks (the winner: “freckles”). Jewesses aren’t just the rage in the triple-X realm, either: They’re seducing goyim on Mad Men and Glee and giving movie geeks conniptions over reports of JILF-on-JILF action between Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis in Darren Aronofsky’s upcoming Black Swan.

That Jewish women have become the ethnic fetish du jour is all the more remarkable given that Jews represent a truly tiny minority (2.2 percent) of the U.S. population. In recent years, God’s chosen menfolk have been objects of affection, too, though they draw their appeal from cuddly schlubbiness, not sexual energy—consider Judd Apatow’s all-Jewish Frat Pack (Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, et al.). But unlike their funnyman brothers, Jewish girls have had to overcome the old stinging JAP stereotype of frigidity, whininess, and big hair.

Recently, however, the Fran Drescher rep has given way to a more smoldering image. Think cultural mutts like Rachel Weisz, Emmanuelle Chriqui, and Rachel Bilson—women who have little in common beyond sultriness and Star of David necklaces.

My first trip to Israel was with Taglit-Birthright Israel in 2006. I was twenty-six and on the waiting list, but a spot opened up at the last minute on a trip specifically geared towards college students. I went anyway since I was excited to have a chance to go.

In retrospect, it was quite interesting to see the interaction between the American and Israeli Jews on the trip. Taglit usually brings a dozen or so young, IDF soldiers on the trip as part of a cultural exchange — and the two groups, both just out of high school, are always excited to meet each other. And I mean “excited” in every sense of the word. (Here is an archived article I wrote on the trip while editor-in-chief of Spare Change News in Boston.)

The American girls were smitten with the muscular, tanned, 18-year-old soldiers carrying machine guns. The American guys were awestruck by the bawdy, lively girls in uniform (see a picture of mine below) who also carried the same weapons. The various hotel rooms in which we stayed over the ten-day trip were put to good use.

Image

I was not the only one to notice the fascination that Americans — whether Jewish or not — have with Israeli women in uniform. The Israeli government decided a few years later to brand the country as being full of gorgeous women to attract more tourism and establish associations with something other than war and terrorism (see here and here). Most significantly, one result was a cover page and photo spread in Maxim magazine in July 2007 with current and former soldiers wearing little.

Image

This video — which went viral — also brought the message of Israel’s unique, well, assets to the Western world (note: strong language):

Now, I do not mean to imply that there is some direct connection between the Israeli government’s marketing efforts and the recent interest in Jewish starlets in Hollywood. No matter what some conspiracy theorists might believe, the Jewish world is nowhere near organized enough to pull something like that off. A group of four Jews can argue for hours over what to eat for breakfast — and some really expect them to run the world?

Still, either there seems to be many Jewish stars gaining popularity among Americans or there are enough media outlets choosing to focus on Jewish actresses, thereby making them popular. (Chicken and egg.) But why?

One obvious answer is that mainstream, white America has always had a fetish for ethnic women of various types throughout the years. (See the Details article’s timeline of Jewish actresses throughout the decades — you might be surprised at who makes the list.) People always have an erotic fascination with that which is different. Moreover, humanity’s natural instincts tell people to produce children with those of other ethnicities because the combination of two immune systems consisting of different genes protects better against disease. (This is also the reason that insular breeding within the same, closed community tends to result in more birth defects and other ailments throughout life.)

So, Americans have always celebrated the, um, beauty of diversity — after all, nearly all Americans are descended from immigrants from various countries — but why Jewish girls? Why now?

As with many subjects, the answer lies in politics, current events, and subconscious mindsets. Many Americans feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are under siege by Islamic terrorists, and they subconsciously empathize with female, Israeli soldiers whom they believe are on the frontline of the War on Terror. (I am sorry to deflate their fantasies, but nearly all female, IDF soldiers work desk jobs — the term in Hebrew is “jobnik” — or do guard duty. The machine guns that the soldiers had on the Birthright Israel trip, for example, are sometimes for show to impress the American boys.)

For those Americans who believe that the world is engaged in a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, Israeli Jews and American Jews are also seen — directly and indirectly, respectively — as allies with the West who have a higher stake in the outcome because of their ethnicity and religion.

Many American men may also be taking a liking to Jewish girls because they are more traditionally oriented towards family and children — and they know how to cook amazing food as well. As the Western world is beginning to experience a backlash against feminism, such an attitude is not surprising.

Another reason is that many Mizhrahi Jews — those whose families come from Arab countries — are a little too close to Arabs. As the Boston Globe’s Brainiac blog observed some time ago on the fact that European fashion shows now feature some Islamic outfits:

I have a psychological, not biological, burqa theory of my own. In the mid-1940s, the psychologist Anna Freud described “identification with the aggressor” as a neurotic attempt to avoid punishment by internalizing the values of one’s oppressor. It seems to me that Americans are so worried about Islamofascist terrorists that we’re slowly turning ourselves into conservative Muslims.

If it is true that Americans can be described as having an increasing “identification with the aggressor,” then taking a liking to Mizrahi Jews — like actress Emmanuelle Chriqui below, who became famous after playing Adam Sandler’s Palestinian love interest in “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” and whose family are Moroccan Jews — is as close as one could get to Arabs without liking, well, Arabs. (Ashkenazi Jews, in contrast, are those of European descent. A slim majority of Israelis are Mizrahi Jews.)

Image

There is yet another uncomfortable reason why Jewish women are becoming so popular. As I noted in a prior essay, Western society is becoming increasingly superficial and more often viewing women as sex objects partly as a result of the unintended consequences of feminism. Jewish women, in general, tend to be more curvy naturally than many of European descent, so they might become more popular in a culture that focuses more and more on appearance. After all, one of the most popular porn stars today, according to the Details article, is Joanna Angel (below). (She comes from an Orthodox Jewish family, so that explains some of the perverted interest as well.) And, no, I am not going to search for a link to her website.

Image

An often-asked question in Jewish circles is: “Is this good for the Jews?” I am conflicted. Obviously, any good PR for Israel is beneficial. But, as frequent readers of my blog know, I am very uncomfortable with women — Jewish or not — being viewed as sex objects. But as with all fads and fetishes, this, too, shall pass. For better and for worse.

Elsewhere: Jessica Pauline looks at the issue at Jewcy as well.

Prior essay: The Upcoming Generational War

Status of Jerusalem

ImageJERUSALEM — The big news of the day — and it is potentially explosive indeed — is the European Union’s reported endorsement of Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state:

The 27 EU foreign ministers are scheduled to decide Tuesday on the final wording of a statement on the Middle East that may very well include European recognition of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Efforts in Brussels on Monday to get a consensus on the text among the EU ambassadors failed, meaning the foreign ministers themselves will have to delve into the arguments over the text.

One Israeli official said it was very rare for a text this substantial to reach the foreign ministerial level without prior agreement.

The statement, which has just been allegedly passed, somewhat states the obvious since all outside parties have agreed that a two-state solution — Israel and Palestine as two countries next to each other — is the way to peace and have pressed both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority towards that end.

But the devil, so to speak, is in the details. Although the Israeli Foreign Ministry is pleased that the statement purportedly recognizes Israel’s claim to east Jerusalem — the territory was annexed following the Six Day War in 1967 –the office also called for the EU to “promote direct negotiations between the parties, while considering Israel’s security needs and understanding that Israel’s Jewish character must be preserved in any future agreement.” This is an important point: The Palestinians have yet to recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

Moreover, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat — a secular, former high-tech businessman who leans right politically — bashed the EU proposal:

In response to the Swedish proposal currently being debated by European Union foreign ministers in Belgium that would declare east Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on Monday sent an official letter to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, in which he insisted that Jerusalem remain united “as the eternal capital of the State of Israel.”

“Throughout the history of the world, there is not one important city that was divided that functioned successfully,” Barkat wrote. “They either reunited or ceased to function properly. The lesson is too clear. Jerusalem must stay united.”

Barkat added that “division focuses on differences rather than the common denominator that unites people of all faiths,” and identified Jerusalem as “the heart and soul of the Jewish people.”

On a personal note, I can say that the mayor is being consistent. I attended a Q&A with Barkat at a gathering of English-speaking Israelis during the 2008 mayoral campaign, and he said the exact same sentiment. This is also an important point: Can a divided city ever function properly?

It is also hard to imagine the hatred that many Israelis have for Europeans in general, especially following their perceived (rightly or wrongly) support for Hamas during the Gaza conflict late last year:

This [EU statement] is known in the trade as a slap in the face. Since coming to power, Netanyahu’s government eased up on checkpoints and military presence in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, has supported and protected Mahmoud Abbas and his government, have slowed and now frozen virtually all settlement construction while being far more cautious about construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem as well as destruction of Palestinian homes. In return, Israel has had to swallow the Goldstone Report, the Swedish “IDF Steals Body Parts” attack with no apology from the government and now this…

Europe should really stay out of it. They have done enough damage with their constant funding for NGOs that oppose Israel, for their blind support of the Palestinians and relative silence over Hamas and Gazan attacks on Israeli civilian targets and the constant pressure presented from their courts over potential arrests of Israeli leaders.

This is also an important point. Both Israel and the Palestinians need to respect those who are trying to mediate the conflict. If even one party does not trust the mediator, then negotiations are useless. Europe — except, perhaps, for France ever since the election of President Nicolas Sarkozy —  is perceived by Israelis as being anti-Israel as much as the United States has been seen as being pro-Israel. Can such outsiders ever implement or even produce a peace agreement, or is it something that Israelis and Palestinians can only reach on their own?

Moreover, if the alleged plans to announce a State of Palestine soon with east Jerusalem as its capital occur — as PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyed might be planning — but produce no real results, will that lead to a third intifada and a return to Square One?

Islamic Call to Prayer

ImageJERUSALEM — Jewish residents of the Holy City are becoming increasingly annoyed by the five-times-a-day calls to prayer broadcast by local mosques:

While recent rioting in and around Jerusalem’s Old City has left religious tensions between the capital’s Muslims and Jews simmering, a new dispute – this time concerning the volume of prayers, more than the prayers themselves – is resonating in outlying neighborhoods.

Jewish residents of these areas, all of which are in close proximity to Arab neighborhoods in the capital’s east, have begun to complain that the adhan, or Islamic call to prayer, which is broadcast five times a day from loudspeakers inside local mosques, has become an intolerable nuisance, particularly when it blasts through their neighborhoods at 4 a.m. every day.

“It’s as if they took the speakers and put them inside my bedroom,” Yehudit Raz, a resident of the northeast Pisgat Ze’ev neighborhood, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. “And it’s not from one mosque or two mosques – we’re talking about tons of speakers going off, one after the other, every morning.”

As with everything in the Middle East, the issue is complicated. Praying at the assigned times is a devout mandate among Muslims, so it is imperative for them that people be reminded to do so. This would not be a problem if the call to prayer could somehow ring only in the ears of believers. But the majority of Jerusalemites — who are mainly Jews but also include some Christians — hear the call as well. So the issue, politically and ethically, is one of competing priorities: the desire to ensure freedom of religion and the desire not to have a religion forced on those who do not believe in it.

Still, Europe is also facing this philosophical dilemma. The historic English city of Oxford has been debating whether to allow the Central Oxford Mosque to broadcast the calls to prayer. Most significantly, a majority of voters in Switzerland recently voted in a referendum to ban the construction of minarets (from which many calls to prayer are broadcast):

Swiss voters on Sunday adopted a referendum banning the construction of minarets, seen by some on the far right as a sign of encroaching Islamism.

“The Federal Council respects this decision,” said a statement from Switzerland’s government. “Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted. The four existing minarets will remain.

“It will also be possible to continue to construct mosques,” the government statement said. “Muslims in Switzerland are able to practice their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before.”

The issue, of course, is similar to that of Christian churches ringing bells every Sunday. When Europe was overwhelmingly Christian for many centuries, this was not a problem. But now I wonder what would happen if a group of non-Christians in Europe or the United States sued to stop the ringing out of the same desire that non-Muslims have to stop the calls to prayer. But the fact remains that Europe has been traditionally Christian. As Ross Douthat notes, the referendum could have occurred anywhere on the continent:

Switzerland isn’t an E.U. member state, but the minaret moment could have happened almost anywhere in Europe nowadays — in France, where officials have floated the possibility of banning the burka; in Britain, which elected two representatives of the fascistic, anti-Islamic British National Party to the European Parliament last spring; in Italy, where a bill introduced this year would ban mosque construction and restrict the Islamic call to prayer.

More and more Europeans are feeling — rightly or not — that their civilization is under attack and in danger of become Islamizied after decades of lax immigration policies. As Douthat observes, this view is both correct and not:

The immigrants came first as guest workers, recruited after World War II to relieve labor shortages, and then as beneficiaries of generous asylum and family reunification laws, designed to salve Europe’s post-colonial conscience. The European elites assumed that the divide between Islam and the West was as antiquated as scimitars and broadswords, and that a liberal, multicultural, post-Christian federation would have no difficulty absorbing new arrivals from more traditional societies…

Millions of Muslims have accepted European norms. But millions have not. This means polygamy in Sweden; radical mosques in Britain’s fading industrial cities; riots over affronts to the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark; and religiously inspired murder in the Netherlands. It means terrorism, and the threat of terrorism, from London to Madrid.

And it means a rising backlash, in which European voters support extreme measures and extremist parties because their politicians don’t seem to have anything to say about the problem.

As I wrote in an earlier post on the philosophical conflict between feminism and multiculturalism in regards to the way that some devout Muslims treat women badly, the solution to the conflict in Europe over the call to prayer in Islam is simply to enforce the law (and enact one beforehand, if necessary). If there are zoning laws or similar ordinances that restrict the broadcasting of noise, enforce them. If not, enact them. Muslims and Christians, for example, may complain about a violation of their religious freedom, but there would be no violation if the law is applied equally and fairly to all religious institutions. For once, the answer is actually quite simple. As my twelfth-grade AP Political Science teacher once put it during a discussion of a U.S. Supreme Court case that denied the right of a Native American tribe to use drugs during a religious ritual, having a religion does not give you the right to break the law.

However, this solution might not work in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel. Islam is only religion here that broadcasts matter relating to religious practice, so any laws or ordinances limiting noise might be inherently discriminatory against Muslims. I do not know the solution here.

Addendum: If any of my American readers live near Muslim communities, I am curious: Do you hear the calls to prayer? Are they regulated by zoning or any related ordinances? I used to cover zoning issues when I was a reporter in Boston, so I am curious.

Elsewhere: Daniel Pipes argues that Christians in Arab countries should be treated equally if Muslims in Europe want to be, and he adds that the Swiss referendum could be a bellwether of Islam’s future in Europe.

Israeli Settlements

JERUSALEM — Law professor David M. Phillips sets the historical and legal record straight on how Israeli settlements are not a violation of international law:

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian” land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term…

The Ottoman Empire contained the area known as Palestine for hundreds of years. The British Empire defeated the Ottomans, took control of the region, gave the land east of the Jordan River to the future kingdom of Jordan, and offered to split the remaining land west of the Jordan between the Jews and Arabs who were living there. The Arabs west of the Jordan rejected the partition, the British withdrew from the area, Israel declared independence, and then the surrounding Arab countries invaded.

By the end of the 1948 war, Jordan had taken control of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. (The so-called “Green Line” has merely been the dividing line between the Israeli and Jordanian armies at the time the cease-fire began.) Most of the Arabs west of the Jordan had moved to the West Bank and Gaza Strip (the latter was held by Egypt). Some of the Arabs had fled for their safety; others had left Israeli territory to make way for the invading armies; and still others had been pushed out by the Israeli army. Many of the Arabs in the West Bank eventually obtained Palestinian passports; Yassir Arafat, of course, was an Egyptian from Gaza. In the 1967 war, the surrounding countries attacked Israel again. In the end, Israel took over the West Bank, west Jerusalem, and Gaza to protect itself against any future attacks by Jordan and Egypt.

So, the only three entities that could possibly have sovereignty over the West Bank are Britain, Israel, and Jordan. England, of course, does not want to retake any possessions in the Middle East. Jordan does not want anything to do with the West Bank anymore because Palestinian terrorists nearly overthrew the monarchy in 1970. This leaves Israel.

The Palestinians, of course, could have a state in the future — but they have never had collective, sovereign authority over the West Bank in the past. As the European Union debates whether to recognize a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, it is worth remembering this fact.

Revealing Clothing

ImageJERUSALEM — British researchers have discovered what sensible men have always known:

Striking the right balance between revealing too much and being too conservative in how much skin is on show has long been a dilemma for women when choosing the right outfit for a night out.

However, a study by experts at the University of Leeds has come to the rescue by calculating the exact proportion of the body that should be exposed for optimum allure…

Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up.

However, those who exposed any more than this also fared worse. Experts believe that showing too much flesh puts men off because it suggests they might be unfaithful.

Psychologist Dr Colin Hendrie, who led the study, told the Daily Mail: “Any more than 40 per cent and the signal changes from ‘allure’ to one indicating general availability and future infidelity.” (emphasis added)

Although I agree with the findings of the study, there are a few issues with the methodology. Of course, it is impossible to control for the hundreds of variables that occur during interpersonal reactions in a club. There are potentially untold numbers of reasons why one woman would be approached more or less often than another. In addition, the intention of the men observed must be taken into account — were they looking for a one-night stand or something meaningful? It would have been impossible for the researchers to discern this. (More on this later.)

Still, the forest is correct even if they were some issues with the trees. Women who wear extremely-revealing clothing can always be categorized as one or more of the following:

  • They have low self-esteem and want interest from men to make them feel better about themselves.
  • They have low self-esteem and think their looks are the only positive quality they possess.
  • They are — for lack of a better term — sluts who are looking for action.
  • Service-sector employees like waitresses and bartenders who are looking for good tips.

As I noted in a prior post, women are much more attractive when they dress modestly and conservatively — what is unseen is always more sexy and alluring than what is seen. A sense of mystery creates desire. For example, I have always thought that women in Jerusalem — where I once lived and will shortly live again — are generally much more attractive than the libertine, scantily-clad girls in Tel Aviv. (The picture posted above is an example of the type of clothing that a modern Orthodox woman may wear.)

In addition, a conservatively-attired woman will attract a better class of men. The British researchers in the posted article noted that women in the club who covered up too much were approached less often. The reason is obvious: drunk guys in clubs are looking for one-night stands, and they know subconsciously that a modestly-dressed girl will likely not be interested in meaningless sex. (Not one of my married friends met his or her future spouse in a bar or club.) The researchers would have found that a conservative dress was more beneficial in a dating environment other than a bar or nightclub.

The cited study reports that women should leave forty percent of their skin uncovered if they want to attract attention in a club. I would posit that women should cover more if they want to attract a quality guy anywhere.

Related: The Battle of the Sexes, Fashionable Modesty, and The Return of Modesty.

(Hat tip: Vox Day)

Letter from Israel: Me and the Israeli Arab

Image

My blog –including this and all posts — has moved here. Please update all links, RSS feeds, and bookmarks.

Sixteenth in an ongoing series

RISHON LEZION, Israel — “Why hire a non-Jew when you can hire a Jew?”

That was the response of a local bar owner when I asked him, out of curiosity, whether he would hire an Israeli Arab as a bartender or waitress if the person were attractive, friendly, and experienced. Earlier that day, I had asked the owner of a local kiosk — something like a convenience store — whom I know whether there were any local companies that provide cleaning services. For the equivalent of $12 for two hours of work, I could have my small apartment cleaned as often as I like.

The kiosk owner, to my surprise, called out to another shopper in the store and asked him in Hebrew whether he wanted a cleaning job. Evidently, they were friends. I spoke to the other person — a guy who was my age — and he agreed to come over the next evening after we haggled over the price. As I left the kiosk, the owner told me in English: “By the way, he is a very nice guy. A hard worker. But he is Arab.”


Arabs, Christians, and Jews

Thirty percent of Israelis are not Jews. Most of the minority are Arabs who are either Muslim or Christian. The remaining people are immigrants from the former Soviet Union — Christians and atheists — who fled the country in the early 1990s and were able to emigrate to Israel because they had at least one grandparent who was a Jew even though they themselves were not Jews. The latter group has become very successful in Israel because they were highly educated in fields like engineering and the high-tech industry. But the Arab community has always had higher levels of poverty, crime, and poor education. Nearly all of them work in blue-collar or service jobs — if they are
employed at all.

When the owner told me that they guy — a 30-year-old by the name of Faiez who works at a falafel stand during the day — was an Arab, I admit that I hesitated for a split second. The American and Israeli sides of my brain were battling each other. The American said not to be racist since the United States has usually been an idealistic, multi-ethnic society — at least in theory, if not always in practice. The realist Israeli in me said to forget about it. After all, I did not really know Faiez — although the kiosk owner said that he was a good guy, this might be a risky endeavor for all the obvious reasons.

Finally, the American in me won. I told the kiosk owner in Hebrew: “What do I care? A good guy is a good guy.”


The Israeli Reaction

I was still a little unsure after I had hired Faiez, so I went to ask some Israeli friends at a bar that night for their thoughts. The owner of the place told me that he always prefers to hire Jews. After all, when you want to build a Jewish country out of nothing but sand, it is important to make sure that all Jews are employed and able to survive. (Although, the owner’s statement was not entirely accurate. Some of the waitresses he had hired were non-Jews from the former Soviet Union, so perhaps he had truly meant that he would not hire any Arabs.) Others offered thoughts that were meant as jokes but offered insights into the Israeli mentality as well. “Don’t leave an Arab guy alone in your apartment; he might try to steal something.” “If anything happens to you, we’ll know what.”

Imagine this conversation occurring in the United States, and replace the word “Arab” with “black” or “Hispanic.” For all of the good things about Israeli society, the sad truth is that this country is incredibly racist as well. A recent wave of immigration brought black Jews from Ethiopia to Israel, but other Israeli Jews frequently refer to them with the Hebrew equivalent of the N-word. For people who were born and raised, for example, in the United States or Britain, these attitudes are always shocking because people in our native countries are less racist, and any racism is at least not spoken bluntly and outright in public.

Now, I am not excusing the racism; I merely intend to explain it. As most people know, Israel has been attacked by the surrounding Arab countries since its inception. Waves of Palestinian terrorism and suicide bombings swept through the country in the late 1980s and 1990s. In this small country — roughly the size of New Jersey — nearly everyone knows someone who died in a war or terrorist attack. For obvious reasons, this affects people mentally. Israelis my age were preteens and teenagers during the worst of the intifadas. The effects are two-fold: 1.) Many Israeli men have some level of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of military service; and 2.) Israelis have a myopic view that the surrounding peoples — Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Syrians — are not individual peoples but simply “Arabs” who want to push the Jews into the sea. The racism in Israeli society recently extended to the city of Petah Tikva, which wants to monitor and “help” Jewish, teenage girls who date older, Arab men. (Although, as I noted, there is also crime, poverty, and education involved in addition to racism.)

In just one example: One friend of mine was fired upon while fighting in Lebanon; a few of his friends died. A few years later, he saw a few other friends die when a Palestinian terrorist took control of a bus and plowed them down in the street. You can imagine what he thought when I told him that I had hired an Israeli Arab to clean my apartment.


Me and Faiez

So, Faiez came over. He was very friendly, and he did a wonderful job cleaning. I gave him the wage plus a good tip. While he cleaned, we would watch soccer and basketball on television, talk about girls, and he would ask me about my American DVD collection. (For example, how do you explain “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in basic Hebrew? I said, “A girl in high school kills…” and then held up two fingers to my mouth to imitate fangs. He understood and laughed.)

I do not speak Arabic, and he does not know English, so we compromised on Hebrew. But we started to teach each other a few phrases in our native languages. Faiez would see my neighbors — cute, Israeli girls in their twenties — walk by and then make the usual comments to me in typical guy-fashion. He asked one if she needed someone to clean her apartment; she declined curtly and walked away. That same night, he asked if my girlfriend — an Israeli Jew who was born and raised in Jerusalem — was Muslim. I responded, perhaps sheepishly because I did not want to risk offending him, that she was not.

Later, Faiez told me this past week that it is hard for him to meet girls. I was not surprised. Most Israeli Arabs live in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and in a few towns in the northern and southern parts of the country — not here in the central region. I said that there are some dating websites for Muslims — probably even for Arabs in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip — and that I would find one for him. But then Faiez said something that made me pause mentally for a moment: “I do not have a lot of friends either. Can I come just to hang out sometimes? You seem like a good guy.”


A New Friendship?

My mind did not know what to think. But out of my American politeness (as opposed to Israeli bluntness), I said: “Of course! You are a good guy too.”

After Faiez left, I went to talk to my friends again. First, I called my girlfriend. “Jews and Arabs just don’t become friends here; it just doesn’t happen,” she said. “You should screen his calls, and hire someone else.” Another friend who owns a bar in the city: “You know what I think. If you become friends, do NOT bring him here.” (“Not a problem,” I replied. “He is a Muslim and does not drink alcohol.”) But three other people responded: “A person is a person. Who cares what his religion is? If someone said these things about Jews, we would be angry!” The responses to my situation perfectly reflected the polarization in Israeli society and politics — there is hardly anything between the far left and the hard right.

Since I had originally hired Faiez to clean my apartment and he seemed like a nice guy, I no longer had any concerns about the fact that he was a Muslim Arab. I was more concerned about my personal motivations. Did I hire him and possibly want to become friends with him because he was a poor Arab who needed the money? That would be condescending. Was I considering becoming friends with him out of a desire, to help promote peace in some small way, to build a peaceful, Jewish-Arab connection between two people? That would reduce him to being simply “an Arab” and not a person in his own right. If I would become friends with Faiez, it would only have to be for the fact that he was a nice guy whom I liked.

So, after reflecting on this situation and writing this essay, that is what I decided to do. Now I’m just thinking about what I will tell my girlfriend.

Prior Letter: The Bright Side of Life

Fatah and Hamas

Spengler posits a reason why the unacknowledged Palestinian civil war is so one-sided:

All the training and arms in the world will not persuade the leaders of the Palestine Authority to fight, because they are extremely wealthy men who live in luxury anywhere in the world. Ahmed al-Meghami, then the PA’s attorney general, estimated in 2006 that billions of dollars may have been stolen by Palestinian officials. Men with London townhouses and villas in the south of France don’t risk their lives. Their Hamas counterparts are quite willing to die and in any case have nowhere to go except safe houses in Damascus. That explains why only one side fights.

Western donors to the PA know this perfectly well; they also know that the putative refugee population is inflated by as many as 1.3 million non-existent souls in order to inflate foreign aid requirements, as I reported on August 18 (Palestine problem hopeless, but not serious). But it is easier to keep the charade going than to admit failure. Cupidity and inertia have produced a criminal enterprise in the guise of a proto-state, vulnerable to liquidation by hard men who are willing to die for what they believe. That is why the Palestinian civil war is a one-sided affair; the other side has no reason to fight.

Hamas seems to be working more for a Palestinian state than Fatah. True, the Palestinian state desired by the terrorist group would take over all the land “the sea to the river,” be void of all Jews, and likely be an Islamic theocracy — but it would still be a state. Fatah, on the other hand, seems to be spinning its wheels.

Annex the West Bank?

Michael Freund posits an idea in light of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision first to retire and then to declare statehood:

For far too long, Israel has been overly vulnerable to such machinations and games. By leaving the status of Judea and Samaria open for discussion, the Jewish state has given the Palestinians too much leeway for mischief-making and malice, which they have only been more than happy to exploit.

In light of Abbas’s latest charade, it is clear that Israel needs to put an end to this farce, once and for all.

We need to send a clear message to our foes, one that will put them on the defensive and strengthen Israel’s hand. And there is no better place to start than with our own unilateral measures, chief among them the annexation of all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

As I wrote in a prior post in my Letters from Israel series, this is the central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

There’s another old joke among Israels: “We want a Jewish state, a democratic state, and a country in all of the ancient land of Israel. But we can only pick two of the three.”

In other words, Israel must eventually choose one of the following options:

1. Democratic and in all of the land — but not Jewish
2. Jewish and in all of the land — but not democratic
3. Jewish and democratic — but not in all of the land

(As I detail in the post, this is the core conflict because of demographic realities in the region encompassing Israel proper, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank.) Israel has yet to decide what it wants to be.

Israel is not going to annex the West Bank anytime soon, and any Palestinian declaration of statehood would go nowhere. Jordan, of course, would never take the territory back. So now I’d like to consider another option that I first heard from an American-Israeli coworker at a high-tech company: Make the West Bank like Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, but it is not an official state. The island can only send a non-voting delgate to Congress, but it has a large degree of autonomous self-rule. I am not an expert on Puerto Rico’s legal status in detail, but I wonder whether something similar might be possible in the West Bank. Readers, what say you?

The Israel Lobby

Does it do more harm than good to Israel?