I am in the second plenary session of the day at the #Tomorrow13 President's conference.
Actually, I'm not. I'm sitting in common area watching on the big screen. It's much cooler, there's more space and there's definitely more light.
The speaker is President Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Axelrod, and I could not think of a more appropriate time to post this picture.
In 2008, then-Senator Obama had no record and our corrupt media had
no interest in vetting him. Therefore, he was a cipher; a thing upon
which the world could gaze and pour their hopes and dreams into. With
his empty prose and sketchy rhetoric about hope and change, Obama
positioned himself to be whatever you wanted him to be.
And our compliant, biased, irresponsible, and dangerous media willfully aided and abetted that deception.
In 2008, The Cipher brought in a crowd estimated at 200,000.
Wednesday, The Reality pulled in only around 4,500.
What a difference failure makes. Epic failure. Heh.
P.S. Axelrod is going on and on about how the GM bailout was such a good thing and helped him carry Ohio. I think the 100%+ turnout in some Cleveland precincts had a lot more to do with that.
This conference has become much more Leftist. But it's still THE business networking event of the year, and I'm thrilled to be here.
#Tomorrow13 The World Order: Facing Tomorrow's Challenges
This is a liveblog of #Tomorrow13's The World Order: Facing Tomorrow's Challenges. I had to leave to go to a meeting for a couple of hours and now I'm back at the conference. Miri Eisen is moderating. The first speaker is Stuart Eizenstat. By the way, this is the only panel in which all the panelists have come here from abroad.
Eizenstat says that the world is now multi-polar. The old G-7 has been superseded by the G-20. Israel needs to adapt and is beginning to do so by deepening its relations with other countries. Israel has $10 billion in trade with China, a country that has no history of anti-Semitism. The US is no longer a rising power, but it will remain a power to be reckoned with for a long time. Only country that project air, sea and land power everywhere. Defense spending still more than the next 15 countries combined. Within five years - if not less - US will be largest producer of natural gas and by 2020 will produce more crude oil than Saudi Arabia, which will lower energy prices and make US more competitive.
China has its own problems.
Globalization is a major force, powered by the internet and the digital revolution. This is a net positive for Israel because Israel is adaptable.
How to manage the struggle for the hearts and minds of 1.6 billion Muslims. Eizenstat says that we shouldn't view this as a battle between the West and Muslims - rather it's a battle within the Muslim world itself. Arab revolution has aggravated this by bringing political Islam to power. Has had dramatic influences on alliances that US created over six decades. Those alliances are now shattered.
US and Israel have opportunities from this crisis, and need to grab them. Israel has important indirect role. Has to reach a rapprochement with Turkey. For sure Turkey started this in Davos when Erdogan walked out on Peres. The Mavi Marmara could have been resolved two years ago, and the agreement still has not been implemented because of a dispute over money.
If Israel can demonstrate that it can be proactive on 'peace process' it will help moderate Arab states. He admits that 'Palestinians' may not be able to make compromises now but should not stop Israel from demonstrating that it can make compromises. Advocates 2002 Saudi plan and says that we should dismantle outposts and allow only 'natural growth' in 'settlements.' (Sound familiar? See the previous post).
Eizenstat says that the delegitimization issue has added an economic element because Europe is our number one export market and what we're seeing is European multinationals refuse to invest anywhere in Israel because of Arab boycott. As we speak, 14 foreign ministers are calling on European Commission to impose labeling requirement on 'West Bank,' which is an incentive not to invest anywhere in Israel.
Cites Richard Falk saying HP, Elbit and others should be boycotted. (Does anyone listen to Falk?).
Because Israel is not alone, for almost all the issues he mentioned Israel has the same interests as other countries in the region.
Josef Joffe up next. Threats today not as bad in many ways as threats of previous generations. But Russia is back and that means that the 19th century is back. Russia gives great stuff to teach International Politics.
Other not good news from Obama's America - proposing to contain and neutralize itself. Leading from behind in Libya and not leading at all in Syria. No great power has ever done this to itself before, and what we may now be facing is creeping anarchy. For the first time since World War II, the US is involved in nation building at home. Putin and Khameni have reached the conclusion that opportunity beckons from Obama's America.
Antony Leong next. He's actually from Hong Kong. Chinese have great admiration for Jewish people. Why does China have so many fewer Nobel prize winners than Israel? Lots to learn.
China will grow 7% per annum for the next decade if not longer. China has to increase domestic consumption. Urbanization will bring lots of room for growth. Urbanized consumers consumer more. Only 50% of Chinese urbanized - typical western country is 75-85% urbanized. Seek similarities to other countries, but allow differences to coexist. Whenever there's a problem, US thinks of law, logic and relationship. China is reversed.
Five factors young people are seeing in tomorrow: Globalization, new technology taking away jobs, huge debt burden in most western countries (especially where there's one person one vote), inflation, aging population. In the last ten years in the US, 1% of population has captured 40% of wealth created.
Leong says we have to think about what kind of education we provide our young people, what jobs we find for them, and changing from a wealth creation bias to a wealth distribution bias.
Professor Dominique Moisi is next. 21st century will not be Asian or Chinese century. This is the first time a company has come to prominence without a universal message, only concerned about itself. And China won't do it: If China doesn't fight corruption, it's doomed, but if it does defeat corruption, the party is doomed. But three key words give hope in the continuation of Chinese growth. Decadence, fear. (Sorry - I missed the first one).
No American century. Europe being fragmented. But too early to bury Europe.
(Sorry but I am really wiped out...).
Ambassador Terje Rød-Larsen is next. Population growth, technology and identity are mega trends that are changing the world. He believes that the Middle East will maintain its centrality in geopolitics but what defines everything has changed. Israeli-Arab conflict no longer defines every conflict in the region.
The key to Iran is not the nuclear issue but that Iran's aim is to dominate the region. Iran's nuclear program is just a tool. But if they get nuclear weapons, the NPT will collapse and everyone else will seek nuclear weapons. Note that no one really worries about Israel's nuclear weapons because everyone knows that Israel doesn't want to dominate the region (as you read that, keep in mind who this guy is).
Moderator asking questions. Larsen says that the UN is losing its legitimacy and that's unlikely to change because Security Council permanent members unlikely to give up their status. Eizenstat says we've created an interdependent world where the seven countries that make cell phones cannot go to war. There are two great threats to US leadership to which it must step up by the end of this year: The Iranian nuclear threat (cannot let negotiations drag out while centrifuges spin; military solution better than nuclear Iran) and Syria (where if Hezbullah and Iran are seen as victors, it will have drastic consequences for the rest of the world).
#Tomorrow13 Should we initiate or should we wait until the Middle East sorts itself out?
Anyone who has read this blog for a day or more knows my position on this.... Steve Linde moderating.
I walked into this session as Itamar Rabinovich was speaking and now Dore Gold is up. Gold says that before we talk about what we should do, we have to recognize what has happened and where we stand. He says that we don't have an option for a permanent status agreement with the 'Palestinians' and lots of weapons on our borders and therefore we have to adopt the position of dispensable borders. Leaving the Jordan Valley would be a national disaster.
Dore Gold says that Hassan Rohani is a master of taqiyya and is the star of the first chapter of Gold's book on the Iranian nuclear threat. Rohani bragged in 2004 about how they completed their nuclear program because of his negotiations. Rohani is not a dove but a fox.
Dan Kurtzer now speaking. Kurtzer wants to talk about the ostrich and the eagle. Kurtzer says that ostrich exposes a certain part of its anatomy that might be exposed to shrapnel by burying its head in the ground. Israel has limited ability to influence change in Arab world, and is mostly affected by what Israel says and not by what it does. Response to Arab spring so far has been enlightened.
Kurtzer found out over the last few days that he's a solutionist and he believes that there's a solution to our dispute with the 'Palestinians.' Gap has been narrowed significantly but no final settlement has been reached. He thinks Israeli initiative which shows it understands that fire in its own house must be put out would be smart. That must include secure, recognized and defensible borders. Both peace treaties with Arab neighbors have provided us with security because they gave us peace partners who were responsible to implement the treaty just like we were. He says borders have to be negotiated. Starting with defined borders may be a way back into the 'peace process.'
Kurtzer says there's a major debate in the US over intervention in Syria. Israelis know better than anyone that conflict fatigue has affected the US - troops on the ground here for the last 12 years. To what degree are concrete achievable American needs at stake? American people aren't sure. Is a devil we know better than what will emerge from the outcome?
Meir Dagan up next. Says he's not a prophet. Says we should not fear worst case scenario. Says our interest and those of the Gulf countries, Egypt and maybe even the 'Palestinians' all have the same interest. All of us fear the open conflict between Shiite and Sunni, and that this creates opportunities for Israel to create different alliances.
Says Saudi plan a starting point and vital for us to discuss it even though he doesn't like all of it either. There are things for which we need the support of other Arab countries to reach an arrangement with the 'Palestinians.' Problems are complicated. Lists other issues in Iran aside from nuclear issue.
If Assad doesn't win in Syria, we can shut down Hezbullah. There are more opportunities here and we should take initiative with Arab world. Says the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Egypt because they were very well organized. New regimes in Tunisia and Libya may not survive - they are criticized daily. The same is true in Egypt. Morsy trying his best not to touch agreement with Israel because he is dependent on money he receives from the United States. King Abdullah has been ruling Jordan longer than any Prime Minister of Israel or any President of the United States. We took a risk with Jordan and it paid off. We have to prepare ourselves for the worst but take every opportunity and chance that we get.
20 minutes of panel debate and then short questions.
Sima Shine says she agrees with Dagan because he was her boss.... She wants to talk about the Iranian election. Where is Iran really going? She doesn't have an answer yet. Rohani is only becoming President in August. What does it mean that he was elected with more than 50% in the first round? She says that the public in Iran sees Rohani as stepping into Moussavi's shoes from 2009. Have to look at his internal agenda - is talking about lifting censorship and giving women more freedom. But the economy is terrible. In July there will be more sanctions. You cannot disconnect the economy from sanctions and the nuclear project and therefore he cannot improve the economy without coming to terms over the nuclear program. The Iranians want sanctions removed which is impossible.
She says that there is no doubt that Israel must initiate. The question is whether Israel has a good answer to all its problems and are they all connected. Will doing something about the 'Palestinians' change the situations in Syria and Iran? She says yes (I say no).
Itamar Rabinovich says that the problem is that no Israeli leader will put Olmert's 2008 proposal on the table, but that Abu Mazen won't accept anything else. So how to find a way to move forward? Offering them $4 billion as a bribe is not the best way forward. Saudi plan (now known as Arab peace initiative) may not be the best way forward. It talks about return to 1967 borders. That includes Syria and obviously no one is going to do that today. So need to open a dialogue with the Saudis but cannot put five lines on the table and say 'take it or leave it.'
Dore Gold says he agrees with Rabinovich that time is not ripe for a full final status agreement. He says that he also agrees with much of what Dagan said. In the '90's the entire approach was economic. The Middle East we have today has two common threats - the Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood. That should help us to build dialogue with some Sunni Arab countries, but that dialogue has to be quiet.
Rabinovich says that 'two-state solution' is not dead and criticizes senior Israeli officials for saying that it's dead. For a senior minister in the cabinet to say that the 'two-state solution' is dead is damaging.
Kurtzer asks why isn't this the time to try for a final status agreement. He thinks this is a time to try for it. He says that we cannot look at the Arab peace initiative through its details but we have to understand the context and that it represents a victory for Zionism because it shows that the Arab world has given up on trying to destroy Israel. In 2002, Arab world threw up its hands and said that Israel is here to stay (if only... CiJ).
Kurtzer says that if we don't agree with him, we shouldn't keep digging the hole deeper with 'settlements.' He says it's just exacerbating the problem every day. People are moving into these houses with no expectation of being a bargaining chip and complicating the agreement that Israel says its seeks with the Arab world. Says people are looking at details instead of looking at eagle's perspective. Dagan pointed out unexpected benefits of Morsy government which has done more to stop Hamas tunnels than anyone else. Egypt working with Israel on strategic issues. Kurtzer says it's time for final status agreement but at least don't make the situation worse.
Dore Gold says that the problem with the Arab peace initiative is that it's 'take it or leave it.' You can't even keep the 'refugees' in Lebanon. It's not a basis for sitting down to talk. Unfortunately, it's take it or leave it.
Meir Dagan disagrees. He says that Israel has to start a serious dialogue with the 'Palestinians.' Saying that there's no way to reach an agreement is damaging to Israel. He knows we cannot reach a final agreement with the 'Palestinians' now but we have to talk to them seriously. He says that we have to take seriously the Arab League's willingness to accept the existence of the State of Israel.
Dagan says he agrees with Kurtzer. Asks rhetorically if we should wait for Hamas to take over in the 'West Bank.' At least the 'Palestinian Authority' has a goal of establishing a 'Palestinian state.' Says Hamas would win election and that is worst case scenario for Israel.
Now taking questions from the audience. First questioner asks Dore Gold why Israel doesn't just call the 'Palestinians' bluff by offering six-month 'settlement freeze.' (Because we did already - CiJ). Gold says just what I said. We did this. It may not have been perfect but the US recognized it was a real freeze. Maybe Mahmoud Abbas doesn't want a negotiation right now. Mubarak would help him in the old days but now Hamas' sponsors are in control in Cairo. Gold says that in a NY Times interview a few years ago, Abbas said that 'settlements' constitute 1.2% of 'West Bank' and Abbas offered 1.9% swap. Arafat signed Oslo without a 'settlement freeze.' There are far more important issues.
Itamar Rabinovich talks about 'settlement products' in Europe. Says Europeans ask why we don't want them to take a more active role. He says just think of what happened a few weeks ago and how the Austrians ran away from the Golan Heights (remember EUBAM? CiJ). BDS gaining in Europe. Rabinovich says don't expand 'settlements.' Improve our hasbara (public relations). Put 20 spokesmen on networks and it won't help if a minister gets up and says that Bibi doesn't want a 'two-state solution.'
Next questioner asks Dan Kurtzer what we're going to do about the Russians holding all the cards in Syria. Kurtzer says that you have to be careful what you say publicly (implies that Obama spoke too quickly on Syrian use of chemical weapons). US trying to weigh all factors carefully. What happens if Assad stays in power? Who will come to power if he leaves? If US believed that there would be a liberal democratic regime in Syria, there would be US bombers in Syria today. But that's not going to happen and the civil war is likely to continue even if Assad leaves. Russia has significant interests in that context. US and Russia trying to align their interests in a way that provides for a reasonable transition in Syria. It hasn't happened yet.
Meir Dagan disagrees with Dore Gold - says that the IDF can protect Israel from any border that the government decides. Withdrawing from Jordan Valley not a disaster according to Dagan. In 1967 we were on different borders and we prevailed militarily. Using security for political issues is a mistake according to Dagan.
Dore Gold cites Yitzchak Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in which he said that Israel had to retain the Jordan Valley in the widest sense possible. Ariel Sharon said the same and so did Gold when he prepared the IDF's interest map for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Gold and Dagan are going back and forth on this.
Dagan claims that Jordan Valley was only important until 1991. Iraq, Syria and Jordan were a threat until 1991 - called Eastern front. Claims it's no longer an issue (Really? Weapons smuggling to 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria? CiJ) because Iraq has no military and Abdullah won't join an eastern front. Says have to prevent terrorists from coming in but don't need direct military presence to do that if you have good cooperation with the Jordanians. Says he's not presenting a political approach. IDF can protect Israel from different borders.
Sima Shine agrees with Dagan (again - why is she on this panel?) about the Arab peace initiative even though we don't like the details and even though we don't know who will rule Syria. You have to take into account that the Arab peace initiative now is mostly Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and maybe Syria.
Stanley Fischer is speaking to bloggers at the #Tomorrow13 conference in Jerusalem. He is the soon-to-be-retiring governor of the Bank of Israel.
Israeli economy starts with world economy. Low growth in Europe this year, US slightly better, but Israel's outside environment not good.
Israel also undertaking 'needed fiscal contraction to get the budget back.' Change in budget relative to year before is rather small but had to break promises. Look for 3.8% growth this year of which 1% will be impact of gas so 2.8% growth overall. Looking at 3-3.5% for 2014.
But we're at full employment - unemployment rate the lowest in 30 years.
Someone from Times of Israel asks if we have moral obligation to help 'Palestinians.' Fischer says we have moral obligation to help world, and economic growth for 'Palestinians' would probably be good for us. If we had free trade and a 'Palestinian' economy at peace, we would probably see a pickup in growth.
Someone asked about China and Fischer said that we don't need to be the ones to boycott China because of its human rights issue when no one else is.
Someone asked him about access to credit for small and medium enterprises. He said that some banks have put aside money for it but this is a worldwide problem.
There's a long line to ask questions so I will pass on that privilege. I wanted to ask about some of his statements about the size of Haredi families. I think what he really meant was that we ought not to be paying people to have children. I would say that we ought to have a means test to decide who needs help to raise their children. The yeled v'kelev crowd (one child and one dog) in North Tel Aviv that makes NIS 100,000 per month or more does not need the monthly subsidy. If so, he ought to say that. But that would enrage the chattering classes....
He's now talking about infrastructure priorities. He admits he doesn't know much about it, and the questioner, who keeps trying to get Fischer to say something about the JNF, is probably from the JNF. 'Nuff said. Have to talk to Elie Klein about limiting next year's blogger sessions to bloggers....
Someone asks him about solving Europe's economic problems. By the way. the rumor here is that Fischer will return to the US to be the governor of the Federal Reserve, so all of you stateside may be hearing a lot about him soon.
The #Tomorrow13 conference will be taking place on Wednesday and Thursday here in Jerusalem (after Shimon Peres' birthday party tonight from which bloggers were excluded). I'll be going to part of the conference but definitely will not be there all day like I have been in the past. Way too many other commitments, including - thank God - work! Deena Levenstein summed up the ambivalence that a lot of bloggers are starting to feel about a conference that's sponsored by Shimon Peres (Hat Tip: Mrs. Carl).
Shimon Peres. I’m sorry. I’m not a fan. Am I allowed to say this and then be the president’s guest for two days? I can’t help but grimace when I picture all the sucking up that happens at the conference. What is with that?
Are these people up for another serving of Oslo Accords?
I lived in Jerusalem at the time with bombs blowing up constantly on buses, in cafes and on the streets. I know people who were killed and injured. The idea of having to forgive or forget is appalling.
I can’t figure out why Peres is so respected in Israel (I don’t care about outside of Israel). It’s upsetting.
Also, what is it with leftists stealing words and making them their own? Peres, you do not own the word peace, it doesn’t have to mean what you and your cronies have made it mean (Jews bending over until their backs break in order to make terrorists happy). And I refuse to let you now own the word tomorrow! I will use the word tomorrow and not think of your conference Tomorrow tomorrow. Tomorrow.
But worst of all, I hate when I find myself getting starry-eyed about a public figure I don’t even respect.
Last year I attended the huge opening event where people terribly enthusiastically cheered on the president, standing ovations and all. I also went to the bloggers’ closed meeting with Peres and found that like almost everyone else there, I was hanging on his every word. Why? And how absolutely strange that I was disappointed by what he said when I already knew he speaks a language I proudly do not understand: Fluff.
But it's more than that. Maybe I'm imaging things but it seems that in the past there were more political sessions and more Right leaning panelists. Is it my imagination? Last year, I sat in on a panel with Caroline Glick and Naftali Bennett. Two years ago, I sat in one with Elliott Abrams (okay, he just got up from shiva last week) and another one with Anthony Cordesman. And at the very first conference there was an amazing speech by Jon Voight, which wowed the crowd... but I don't think he's been invited back since.
I haven't been through the entire schedule yet, but the only Right-leaning political figure I have found is Dore Gold.
Will there be a President's Conference when Peres is no longer President?
#Tomorrow13 A Muslim talks about Israel's President's conference
Next week, I will be attending the annual President's Conference here in Jerusalem for the third time (maybe even the fourth). One of the speakers will be Raheel Raza, the President of the Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Raheel received a letter from a 'Palestinian in Vancouver' urging Raheel to boycott the conference. She wrote this piece in response.
My response to my Palestinian friend is that the first time I was
invited to speak at this conference three years ago, I went, hesitantly,
not knowing what it was all about. I was so enthused by both my visit
to Israel and the conference that I wrote extensively about the
experience on my blog, and later named my own Not-for-Profit
Organization "Muslims Facing Tomorrow" with an idea that one day, I
would host a similar conference about ideas and a vision for a better
tomorrow.
Upon my return, I praised the country and the people, but many of my
Muslim friends were not interested in knowing these details. They only
asked, "Were there any Palestinians at the conference and was the
Israel-Palestinian issue discussed?" I was happy to respond that yes,
there were Palestinians at the conference; I had even brought home a
book on Islam from one of the Palestinian speakers there.
About human rights violations: granted that Israel, like every other
country, has violations -- but far fewer than those of the countries
surrounding it. Israel is still the only liberal democracy in the area
where one can find gender equality and freedom for its citizens. During
my visits to Israel, I have, in fact, questioned Israeli Arabs and found
that they are loath to leave the country where they enjoy freedom and
human rights.
...
My problem is that I am from Pakistan, a country where the word human
rights has no meaning or recognition whatsoever. According to the Human
Rights Watch World Report on Pakistan for 2012, Pakistan had a
disastrous year -- including increasing attacks on civilians by militant
groups, religious minorities facing unprecedented insecurity and
persecution, and where freedom of belief and expression are coming under
severe threat as the presence of Islamists has grown by leaps and
bounds. This does not even begin to address violations against women.
The Aurat Foundation, a local women's rights group in Pakistan, says the
number of incidents of violence against women in Pakistan has increased
at least seven percent over the past year.
But I have never seen or heard a Palestinian speak out about these
human rights violations; take part in demonstrations or boycotts for
these offences, or show support for the cause of Pakistani women. Where
were their voices when Christians and Shias were being killed and
brutalized in Pakistan just a few months ago? No one asked me to cancel
my annual visits to Pakistan, but I did lodge a complaint against my own
land of birth at the UNHRC, so I may not be travelling back there soon.
...
In ending let me say this to my Palestinian friend: The
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is over land, and can be solved when both
sides recognize one another and, as equals, then have a dialogue. This
means that, like me, you have to accept that Israel has a right to
exist. It is not the only conflict related to Muslims. If you want
justice for those facing criminal human rights violations, then speak
out against Sudan, Egypt, Burma, China, Iran and all other countries who
regularly persecute their own citizens.
#Tomorrow13 A call for consistency from Stephen Hawking
A reminder again that I am in Chicago, and not in Israel, so I am posting much later today than would otherwise be the case.
This comment by Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society is one of the best I've seen about Cambridge Professor Stephen Hawking's decision to boycott Israel (Hat Tip: Alan M).
When these people claim that their attack on the Jewish state is not in any way bigoted or anti-Semitic, you have to start asking them questions. When was the last time Israel beheaded or crucified criminals? Any time recently? No, of course not. Saudi Arabia did so only last month.
These academics of the Left like to claim they are in favour of minority rights. Yet Israel is home to the only open and thriving gay community in the Middle East, while in Iran gays are hanged from cranes.
All Israeli women have the same rights as women in any Western country. In each neighbouring country they are second-class citizens and in a number of them can be stoned for alleged ‘adultery’.
But where are the academic boycotts of Saudi, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Syria and everywhere else?
But apart from all this, academic boycotts are utterly self-defeating.
Israeli research institutions lead the world in breakthrough technologies. They benefit all of us who rely on computers and mobile phone technology.
They also lead the world in medical advances, and have more scientists per capita than any other state in the world. Every patient who has benefited from the latest surgery techniques — or hopes to benefit from the cutting-edge research into Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and many more diseases — will rely on discoveries made in Israeli research facilities.
Universities and research institutions in particular shouldn’t be boycotting Israel. They should be thanking the country, for they rely on it.
If these academics want to make a truly principled boycott, they should tear out their Israeli-developed pacemakers and smash up their computers and mobile phones which will, invariably, have Israeli technology in them.
They should forbid their family members from getting access to Israeli-created vaccines for countless viruses and make sure their children and elderly relatives never benefit from the technologies created in Israel to relieve and heal some of the most terrible conditions mankind faces.
But they won’t. Just as Professor Hawking won’t give up the Israeli technology he relies on.
For with supreme irony, the speech device which enables Hawking to communicate with the world and relate his fascinating thoughts to us is a computer Intel Core i7-based communication system. Which runs on a chip designed by Israel.
Perhaps Professor Hawking should reflect on what it would mean if he truly committed himself to a boycott of Israel.
Okay, so Hawking lacks what we Jews refer to as hakarat ha'tov (acknowledging the good that someone else does for you.
But even if Israel's weren't a bunch of technology whizzes, the fact of the matter is that the world's greatly disproportionate interest in our dispute with the 'Palestinians' as compared with any other dispute in the world is pure anti-Semitism.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, May 10.
1) When is news not really news?
The Newseum - a museum devoted to the news business - recently held an
event to honor journalists killed in the line of duty. Included in that
honor members of Hamas who were killed by Israel this past November.
Newseum honoring Hamas employees is an insult to brave legit journos killed in duty bit.ly/12lE3ev
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) May 10, 2013
Does this mean that the @newseum will honor the memory of contributors to Inspire Magazine as well? buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/pro-… cc: rosiegray
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) May 10, 2013
BuzzFeed covers the story and includes this from Cliff May:
May said that a decision would not be made before speaking with the CEO of the Newseum.
"Let me be fair and give them an opportunity to answer my questions (I
have more than a few)," he said. "As I said: Perhaps there's been a
misunderstanding or perhaps some re-thinking is taking place in light of
additional information they have received."
"But I will say this: I spent most of my adult life as a journalist – at
the New York Times and other media organizations," May said. "I know
the difference between a reporter and a terrorist propagandist. I'm
hopeful that the folks at the Newseum also are able to make such
distinctions."
Does the New York Times know the difference between a reporter and propagandist?
I bring you former public editor of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, defending the paper's decision to publish an op-ed by a spokesman for Hamas in 2007:
Many readers were outraged, complaining that The Times had provided a
platform for a terrorist. One, Jon Pensak of Sherborn, Mass., said that
allowing Yousef space in The Times “isn’t balanced journalism, it is
more the dissemination of propaganda in the spirit of advocacy
journalism.”
Well, yes. The point of the op-ed page is advocacy. And, Rosenthal said,
“we do not feel the obligation to provide the kind of balance you find
in news coverage, because it is opinion.”
David Shipley, one of Rosenthal’s deputies and the man in charge of the
op-ed page, said: “The news of the Hamas takeover of Gaza was one of the
most important stories of the week. ... This was our opportunity to
hear what Hamas had to say.”
True, the New York Times didn't presume that Yousef was a reporter. But
if the Hamas view was really necessary, it could have been included in a
news article. The New York Times elected to give a terrorist
organization an unchallenged platform for its propaganda and passed it
off as "debate."
Fortunately the Treasury Department isn't given over to such ambiguity. The department's press release designating Al Aqsa TV as a terrorist organization reads:
Hamas leadership raised the initial capital for the station shortly
after the January 2006 Palestinian elections. At that time, donors
contributed half a million dollars for the channel, which was to be
headed by members of Hamas, and shortly thereafter, Hamas leaders
negotiated broadcasting arrangements with a satellite television
provider. As of late 2009, the Hamas headquarters in Damascus, Syria,
allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars for Al-Aqsa TV's budget, and
senior Hamas officials continued to control the station's operations.
Fathi Hammad, the former director of Al-Aqsa TV, currently serves as the
Hamas interior minister in Gaza, is a former senior member of Hamas's
military wing in Gaza, and as of 2007, was a member of the Hamas Shura
Council. Hammad has supervised the construction of smuggling tunnels
for Hamas and has encouraged the building and use of homemade weapons
for use against Israel. In May 2009, Dr. Mahmud Abu-Daf replaced
Hammad as the head of Al-Aqsa TV. Abu-Daf is a senior Hamas figure who
served as a member of the Hamas Shura Council and Political Bureau.
Hamas, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist backed by Iran, has
intentionally killed hundreds of civilians, including U.S. citizens.
Its violent takeover of Gaza in 2007 has allowed continued rocket
attacks against Israeli cities and civilians within range of the
territory. As of this year, Hamas has continued to ignore demands from
the international community to renounce violence and accept the other
Quartet principles, including the recognition of Israel and a commitment
to abide by past diplomatic agreements. Moreover, statements by Hamas
leader Khaled Mish'al indicate that the group continues to produce and
smuggle weapons into Gaza.
The interior ministry in thugocracies like that of Hamas in charge of
internal security, in other words, the police and security forces. These
are the people who enforce the rule of Hamas.
The Newseum's self description is:
The Newseum — a 250,000-square-foot museum of news — offers visitors an
experience that blends five centuries of news history with
up-to-the-second technology and hands-on exhibits.
Unfortunately, as this exhibit shows, it reflects the mindset in too
many newsrooms nowadays. I suspect that no one bothered to check on the
Treasury's designation of Al Aqsa TV. The Newseum wouldn't acknowledge
that Mahmoud Al Kumi belonged to a terrorist organization. (I just noticed another "journalist" honored by the Museum, Ali Abbas.
Abbas, was an official of the SANA news agency in Syria. In other words
he was a mouthpiece for Bashar Assad. The Newseum really needs to learn
the difference between journalism and propaganda.)
So Stephen Hawking boycotts Israel but visited the Soviet Union under Brezhnev and Iran under Khamenei/A-jad? tinyurl.com/d7ev3rx
— Erick Stakelbeck (@staks33) May 10, 2013
Organizers of the fifth annual Israeli Presidential Conference, held
under the auspices of President Shimon Peres, said they had received a
letter over the weekend from Dr. Hawking, a longtime Cambridge
professor, announcing his decision.
Cambridge issued a statement indicating that Dr. Hawking had told the
Israelis that he would not be attending “based on advice from
Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott,” according to
The Associated Press.
...
Israel Maimon, the chairman of the conference, strongly criticized the
professor’s decision, saying in a statement, “The academic boycott of
Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for
whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic
mission.”
I wonder who Dr. Hawking's interlocutors are among "Palestinian
academics?" Are they professors who can freely explore new ideas without
fear of losing their jobs or freedom? Israel Maimon is correct. The
problem inst not just that Hawking, in embracing the boycott of Israel,
denies "the spirit of liberty." He came to his decision in consultation
with those who operate in an environment that deprives them of their
liberty to do their jobs and pursue inquiries without official
interference.
The full text of the letter, dated 3 May, said: "I accepted the
invitation to the Presidential Conference with the intention that this
would not only allow me to express my opinion on the prospects for a
peace settlement but also because it would allow me to lecture on the
West Bank. However, I have received a number of emails from Palestinian
academics. They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view
of this, I must withdraw from the conference. Had I attended, I would
have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government
is likely to lead to disaster."
And the response from Israel.
"The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and
improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at
the basis of his human and academic mission," said conference chairman
Israel Maimon. "Israel is a democracy in which all individuals are free
to express their opinions, whatever they may be. The imposition of a
boycott is incompatible with open, democratic dialogue."
Let's put it this way. If Hawking had come to the conference and announced "In my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government
is likely to lead to disaster," he likely would have been applauded by about half the Israelis there, and no one would have questioned his right to his opinion.
On the other hand, had he gone to Ramallah or Gaza and announced "In my opinion that the policy of the present [Fatah/Hamas/'Palestinian Authority'/'Palestinian'] government
is likely to lead to disaster," he would have had problems getting out alive.
In a crazy twist of events, Professor Stephen Hawking retracted a
retraction on Wednesday saying that support for an boycott of Israel was
the real reason behind his decision to pull out of the fifth
President's Conference in Jerusalem....
Earlier on Wednesday his spokesman at the University of Cambridge denied
that support for an academic boycott of Israel was the catalyst and
said that he withdrew on medical grounds.
...
"I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics,"
Hawking said in the letter. "They are unanimous that I should respect
the boycott. In view of this I must withdraw from the conference."
When this was put to his spokesman, he told the Post
that he was unaware of this line in the letter and reaffirmed that
medical reasons was the sole reason for cancelling. The spokesman said
he would look into the letter.
Later on Wednesday, the University
of Cambridge withdrew its original statement attributing it to health
reasons and confirmed it was because of support for the call to boycott
Israel. “We have now received confirmation from Professor Hawking’s
office that a letter was sent on Friday to the Israeli President’s
office regarding his decision not to attend the Presidential Conference,
based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the
boycott," a spokesman at the University of Cambridge said.
“We had
understood previously that his decision was based purely on health
grounds having been advised by doctors not to fly," the spokesman added.
You already know what I think of this from my previous posts. Hawking is just plain wrong. For a man who is supposed to be able to think for himself, he is certainly influenced by his anti-Israel environment.
Hawking has actually been to Israel four times, most recently in 2006. Here's a report on his last visit.
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's an interview that Hawking did during that trip with Yair Lapid (yes, that Yair Lapid). He talks about the 'peace process' around the 6:00 mark.
Let's go to the videotape.
But the BDS'ers are losing this one anyway.
Because Hawking is not coming to the conference, he will be at commencement in Cambridge on June 18. And there will be Israelis there (Hat Tip: Lance K).
On June 18, 2013 Cambridge will be awarding an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree, one of only four such awards, to Professor Ada Yonath, who is the Martin S. and Helen Kimmel Professor of Structural Biology and Director of the Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Center for Biomolecular Structure and Assembly at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry 2009.
I vaguely recall that Yonath is also a far Leftist. But one point of the anti-BDS campaign is that BDS paints with a broad brush, turning all Israelis into 'oppressors.' It's just plain wrong. So the fact that Cambridge will award a prize to an Israeli with Hawking there still makes this a #BDSFail moment.
Before the Stephen Hawking story was exposed as a hoax, I found this a great open letter to Stephen Hawking by Raheem Kassam, the Executive Editor of the Commentator. While it's thankfully not applicable to Hawking, it's applicable to an awful lot of other BDS'ers.
You see, you taught people to question things - but your involvement
with the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine reflects
that you have either abdicated your commitment to the scientific method,
or you simply have abdicated your sense of morality.
"Our position is based upon the belief that it is through cooperation based on mutual respect, rather than through boycotts or discrimination, that our common goals can be achieved. Bridging political gulfs – rather than widening them further apart –between nations and individuals thus becomes an educational duty as well as a functional necessity, requiring exchange and dialogue rather than confrontation and antagonism"
You see, it was like very likes of your work that helped me break
through a regurgitative stupor. I stopped believing what I read in chain
e-mails, I began to question what even the loftiest of news
organisations and non-governmental organisations told me. You and many
others made me realise that everyone has their own agenda, and my
response should not be to shun things, but to get to the bottom of the
issues for myself, attempting to leave a positive impact along the way.
Something I could say I "achieved".
Professor Hawking, I believe you might once have said that science is
not only a disciple of reason but, also, one of romance and passion. But
much like science, morality cannot be solely about romance and passion -
it must also and primarily be about reason.
I fear that in failing to uphold your commitments to the Facing
Tomorrow conference in Israel, you are abandoning reason, and operating
solely on the basis of misplaced passions, and romantic notions of
solidarity with anti-Israel campaigners. I believe this to be an
abandonment of the very basis upon which academia and science is
founded.
#Tomorrow13 #BDSfail Hawking trip cancellation a hoax
In a previous post, I reported that physicist Stephen Hawking is boycotting Israel by withdrawing from the President's Conference. That made me wonder whether Hawking would at least be morally consistent and extend his boycott to the company with the most advanced breakthrough for ALS, the disease from which he suffers. You see, that company is Israeli too.
Although
this was not the main aim of the test, some of the 12 patients in the
phase 1/2 trial with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), the
muscle-wasting disease, as well as three further patients provided with
the experimental treatment, also showed highly unusual signs of
improvement, the company said.
Professor Dimitrios Karussis of the Neurology Department at Hadassah
Medical Center, Jerusalem, and principal investigator of the trial,
said: “We cannot ignore some possible promising indications of clinical
efficacy observed in single patients, such as a tendency towards
improvement in some of the major ALS Functional Rating Scale variables.”
The trial was conducted at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, and
the results have been reported to the Israeli Ministry of Health.
In case you're wondering, according to this biography, Professor Dimitrios Karussis holds Greek citizenship only. We must have been real racists to let him into the country.
/sarc
But the truth is that Professor Hawking is not boycotting Israel. He canceled his trip for health reasons and the BDS'ers jumped all over it using al-Guardian and the Beeb as willing tools for their hoax.
The Guardian, which broke the story late last night, claimed that
Hawking was due to boycott Israel after receiving an erroneous statement
from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP),
apparently with Hawking's approval.
The statement said that the move was "his independent decision to
respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the
unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".
However, a Cambridge university spokesperson has confirmed to The
Commentator that there was a "misunderstanding" this past weekend, and
that Prof. Hawking had pulled out of the conference for medical reasons.
Responding to an e-mail including an open letter to Prof. Hawking,
shared nearly 2000 times, a University spokesman said: "Professor
Hawking will not be attending the conference in Israel in June for
health reasons - his doctors have advised against him flying."
When asked for further information, the spokesperson confirmed that the
BRICUP organisation had "assumed" Hawking's position on the matter, and
that it was fundamentally untrue.
The Commentator was unable to reach BRICUP via telephone for comment....
Pretty nasty for BRICUP and its fellow travelers to use a man's illness to create a hoax, isn't it? And pretty irresponsible of al-Guardian and the Beeb to publish a story like that without - apparently - at least contacting Hawking's spokesman, isn't it? But then this fits pretty consistently with a pattern of #BDSfail, doesn't it?
#Tomorrow13 Physicist Hawking joins BDSers, pulls out of President's Conference
Physicist Stephen Hawking has pulled out of the Presidential Conference, to be held in Jerusalem next month (yes, I hope to attend, God willing), as a protest against Israel's treatment of the 'Palestinians.'
Hawking, that chose not to announce his decision to pull out of the
conference publicly, wrote a letter to Peres telling the president he
decided "to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine,
and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there," the Guardian reported.
Hawking's participation in the conference was announced in early April,
and since then he has received messages from the UK and abroad urging
him to cancel his appearance as an act of support for the academic
boycott that is a part of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions
campaign against Israel.
The Guardian reports Hawking decided to heed the advice of his Palestinian colleagues who agreed he should not attend the Jerusalem event.
Hawking,
the head of the Practical Mathematics and Physics Department of
Cambridge University, suffers from ALS disease, which has shut down
movement in his entire body but not affected his mental fitness.
Hawking’s
last visit to Israel took place in 2006, when he was invited by the
British Embassy to tour Israel and the Palestinian territories as well
as meet with local scientists and academics. At the time, he said he was
"looking forward to coming out to Israel and the Palestinian
territories and excited about meeting both Israeli and Palestinian
scientists."
Since then, Hawking changed his attitude towards
Israel, denouncing the 2009 Operation Cast Lead, and saying Israel's
reaction to the rocket fire from Gaza was "out of proportions."
The following is from a statement from conference organizers that I received by email.
As you know, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking joined the academic boycott of Israel and pulled out of the Israeli Presidential Conference: Facing Tomorrow 2013, under the auspices of Israeli President Shimon Peres, “in protest of Israel's treatment of Palestinians.” The event – the fifth annual conference - is scheduled for June 18-20, 2013 in Jerusalem.
Israeli Presidential Conference Chairman Israel Maimon responded to Hawking’s announcement saying that his decision was unjustifiable and wrong:
“The academic boycott against Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic mission. Israel is a democracy in which all individuals are free to express their opinions, whatever they may be. The imposition of a boycott is incompatible with open, democratic dialogue.”
Israel Maimon also noted that this year’s conference will be attended by 5,000 people from around the world, among them dozens of speakers that represent the best minds from across the globe: excutives of major global technology companies, academics, Nobel laureates, artists and past and present heads of state including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who will receive the President’s award from President Shimon Peres, former President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev,former British PM Tony Blair, Prince Albert of Monaco, Barbra Streisand and many others."
The blatant hypocrisy in pulling out of this conference (run by Shimon Peres! Mr. Peace Process!) is breath-taking, and shows the rank hatred for Jews and Israel that motivates the BDS'ers.
Well, thankfully I missed this session (and not just because of the Yankees hat).
Russell Simmons, internationally acclaimed music industry and fashion mogul, said at the 2012 Israeli Presidential Conference that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can best be described as a "beef" between rival rappers that can be resolved through dialogue and understanding.
"Conflict needs dialogue and dialogue allows peace to grow," said Simmons, who is here in Israel representing his Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. "When peace comes, and peace will come, the seeds need to be laid for trust and this is only achieved through dialogue."
Simmons was joined by his close friend and President of the foundation, Rabbi Marc Schneier. The two spoke extensively about the impact of their organization on improving relations between Jews and Muslims in the US and the world.
"We are the international address for Muslim-Jewish understanding," said Schneier, who mentioned campaigns in which Jews and Muslims jointly fought anti-Semitism and Islamophobia around the world. "Our work goes beyond dialogue, it is about Muslims fighting for Jews and Jews fighting for Muslims."
Uh, no.... Sometimes talking just drags the conflict out and in the worst case (Iran) it can even allow the other side a strategic advantage.
And as to 'improved relations' between Jews and Muslims around the world... certainly not anywhere in the Muslim dominated countries.
Liveblog from #tomorrow12 The Tomorrow's Borders of Israel
This is a liveblog of the 'Tomorrow's borders' panel. The list of panelists and their bios are here.
Nir Hefetz opens with story of Israel postponing the 'settlement freeze' due to a demand that it include Jerusalem before it was even voted upon. Implies that George Mitchell leaked it to Yediot's Shimon Shiffer to try to pressure the government.
Dan Rothem gives demographic statistics and slips in double counting of 'east' Jerusalem Aravs without most people noticing. He also uses Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) figures for Judea and Samaria as if they were reliable. He uses 2012 numbers for overall, but 2010 numbers for 'east' Jerusalem claiming 285,000 Arabs.
Naftali Bennett gets up to speak. Bennett says conflict can't be solved but we can learn to live with it (which is what I have argued on this blog many times). He has up the JCPA topographical map:
Bennett comes to 1.8 million 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria, while Rothem had put up a number of 4.3 million. That's what the argument over demography is about.
Bennett gives his plan. NO expulsions - not for Israelis and not for 'Palestinians.' Says most Arabs just want to live. Focus on what we can solve. Don't waste time in Oslo and Annapolis. Shooting for perfection will just bring disaster.
Caroline Glick is next. Says she agrees with Bennett and that we should accept the fact that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. Says 'Palestinians' don't want peace and that we have fulfilled our obligations under UN resolutions. The only legally binding document under international law is the British Mandate and that said that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel.
Three models: 'Palestinian' sovereignty, i.e. Gaza. Shared sovereignty like Judea and Samaria but 'Palestinians' are using that to erode our legitimacy. Sole Israeli sovereignty like in Jerusalem. Sole Israeli sovereignty does much better job of guaranteeing citizens rights.
Why no Israeli Arab terrorism? The reason is because Israel has sovereignty in Galilee and Negev.
Caroline posts demographic study from 1997-2009 and says she will give Arabs citizenship. Says that Rothem's data has been proven incorrect since 2004. It relied on 1997 PCBS census that overstated by more than 1.8 million. Birth rates converging. Massive aliya potential in Europe. 'Palestinians' have net emigration since 1994. From a demographic perspective, the future belongs to the Jews. We are only western democracy with fertility rate above replacement rate (US at 2.1 is around replacement rate).
Ilan Paz next - battery running out. Paz urges accepting Rothem's statistics. Says PCBS reliable. Then goes on to talk about security fence. Argues that Jerusalem is not united and therefore we should give up Arab neighborhoods and we can solve the problem of the holy basin. Of course, Paz ignores the fact that surveys have found that the 'Palestinian' Arabs in Jerusalem don't want to live in a 'Palestinian state.'
Makovsky is next. He reads what Netanyahu said a couple of weeks ago, and says that Netanyahu says we need peace to avoid a binational state and that we don't want 'Palestinians' to be part of our state. He says no one wants to annex the 'Palestinians.' Israel does not want a binational state.
Makovsky developed a map of a proposed peace agreement.
He claims there is hope for peace, and that the gaps are narrower than people realize.
Now in moderator's Q&A. Makovsky says that based on his conversations with Abu Bluff, they understand that Israel is going to maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley for some time to come even if there is an agreement. I find it hard to believe Abu Bluff will accept that.
I did not get to ask the questions I wanted to ask in the Q&A. I wanted to point out that the statistics presented by Rothem and Paz double counted the 'east' Jerusalem Arabs, and whether it matters how small the gaps are when we all have seen that the 'Palestinians' have not made a single concession at least since 1993.
One other observation about the President's Conference. This is the second one I have attended - last year was the first time they went out of their way to invite a lot of bloggers (and this year we actually have access to the press room, where I will guarantee you that the bloggers were the only people there who are over 30).
Most of the people I spend time with at the conference are either conservative bloggers like me, people I know from the business world, or old friends. Our religious levels are all over the map, but most of us tend to be to the right politically.
Last year, we had a sense that the panels were balanced. This year, most of the people I have spoken with feel that the political panels are not balanced, with the exception of this panel, which is taking place on Thursday. Ironically, there is a blogger's session with Peter Beinart that is starting in the middle of that panel, and most of the bloggers I know are planning to skip Beinart in favor of the panel.
Sharansky, Cotler Discuss Compatibility of Jewish and Democratic Values in Israel
Here's a summary of the session I wanted to attend from the conference publicist.
Hebrew University President and former Knesset member Professor Menahem Ben Sasson led a panel of experts including Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former Deputy Prime Minister, Canadian MP Professor Irwin Cotler, in which they analyzed the ramifications of a "Jewish and democratic" State as well as highlighted the challenges that Israel faces regarding tensions between religious and secular values.
“Democracy and religion do not contradict, you do not have to give up on one in favor of the other,” said Sharansky. “The basic desire to be free but to also belong, to live a life of quality, liberty and meaning are simply two dimensions of the same thing. A life of values provides strength to fight for your freedom.”
He imparted that this idea is very natural to him, having lived in the former Soviet Union with no freedom and no identity and then discovering both at the same time when he arrived in Israel. He stated that conflict is inventible among those living as both “proud and free Jews” and that Israel faces many challenges to which there is no simple solution. To this, he stresses the importance of introducing general “traffic rules” to help navigate these issues.
Cotler emphasized the important role that Jewish values, such as aiding the downtrodden, remembering and honoring the past, valuing equality, and refraining from assaultive speech and slander, can play in shaping a democratic society.
“Israel is both a Jewish and democratic State with the added challenge of living in a hostile environment,” he said. “The fundamental Jewish values of respect for the sanctity of human life should frame our discourse and policy when it comes to national issues, including Israel’s current African migration challenge.”
Too bad they didn't add anything from the other panelists.
I'm at the President's Conference trying to do three things at once, including watching a simulcast of the panel on the Arab spring (which features Meir Dagan and Dennis Ross). Unfortunately, all the panel rooms are full and I did not get into one despite a promise to let 'media' in.
Two things I want to point out. First, I had raised in an earlier post the issue of observant Jews being on the panels. The panel on Israel being a Jewish or democratic state (which was the main target of that quip) includes Adina Bar Shalom (Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef's daughter) and Dudi Zilbershlag, who certainly have religious backgrounds and have the qualifications to discuss that issue (that was the panel I actually wanted to hear in this slot).
So now I'm watching the Arab spring panel and of course they're saying that we need to make peace with the 'Palestinians' and with the Turks. If only either of those were possible on non-suicidal terms. Meir Dagan now speaking and basically refers to Netanyahu as an irrational hawk and claiming that's why Netanyahu can't get along with Jordan's King Abdullah. Dagan also refers to 'illegal settlements.' He sounds as harsh as any of our critics (and of course is being applauded for it). Who is defending Israel on this panel?
A reminder that the graphic at the top of this post was done by daughter # 3 child #5. If any of you need a graphic artist, Mrs. Carl and I are encouraging her to take projects from home during the summer. She is quite talented.
I didn't make it to the President's conference on Tuesday - too many other commitments at home and for work (I don't get paid to blog). But I hope to make it today and will probably be heading over there around the time that you are reading this. Stephen Leavitt was there on Tuesday and felt a sense of dystopia when the subject turned to 'peace' in the Middle East.
On the other hand, when the speakers spoke of peace, we entered the fantasy aspect of the conference.
It began with Professor Daniel Kahneman’s lecture.
Kahneman spoke of Hawks and Doves, the long time and extremely controversial theory he propounds regarding why nations go to war. His conclusions were that while the positions and analyses of the Hawks often seem to be correct, it is only seems so because people are internally biased and prejudiced to sooner believe and/or follow those positions and observations for a variety of cognitively distorted reasons or personal benefit (such as not looking stupid historically after they leave political office). And while the position of Doves seem too often to prove to be wrong, in reality they aren’t. The speech and theory was obviously far more complex than that, but I think that sums it up succinctly enough.
As an example, he spoke of the Egyptian peace treaty that has lasted 30 years. When he mentioned that example, I couldn’t help but think of the recent terror attacks emanating from Egypt, the massive weapons smuggling operations running from Egypt to Gaza, the hatred of Egyptians for the Jewish state – which never subsided in those 30 years, and the strong likelihood the treaty will soon be history. And then my thoughts went on to Oslo…
Stephen goes on to describe how they conference sponsors managed to turn Henry Kissinger into the best friend Israel ever had. Yes, Kissinger, the guy who opposed the Jackson-Vanik amendment that eventually opened the gates of the Soviet Union to allow Jews out, opposed the airlift of supplies to Israel that saved the day in the Yom Kippur War, and who was indifferent to the possibility that Russian Jews would be sent to the gas chambers. It's disgraceful that Israel chose to honor him.
Observant Jews excluded from Peres conference panels?
Just about every political blogger I know from Israel - and a few from abroad - is going to spend at least some time at the President's Conference in Jerusalem over the next three days. But this year's panels seem different than last year's in a very disturbing way. The Jewish Press explains.
I checked out some of the discussion forums, trying to assess if there was anything there that would blow my mind. So I checked out “Tomorrow’s Religion: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?”
“What is the role of religion in shaping tomorrow? How will it influence the development of human society? Can religion, which is part of the current problems, become part of tomorrow’s solutions?”
The answers to these crucial questions will be provided by Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions Guy Stroumsa (moderator); by University College Anthropologist Jonathan Benthall; former Minister for Social Affairs and World Jewry Rabbi Michael Melchior (who is on the short list to succeed Rabbi Jonathan Sacks as GB Chief Rabbi); University of Edinburgh Professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies Mona Siddiqui, and Trinity College Professor Mark Silk.
The panel does includes a real rabbi, then, alongside a slew of academics, each of whom will share a portion of the 90 minutes allotted this weighty topic (Thursday, June 21, 2:00 – 3:30 PN). No room will be made for people who actually engage all day long, every day, in their religion, which is why, even if the panel had 10 hours, they would still not be able to come up with exciting answers to whether religion is part of the problem or the solution.
I safely filed this session under “part of the problem” and moved right on.
“Judaism and Democracy: Complementary or Conflicting Values?” doesn’t even feature the obligatory rabbi (Wednesday, June 20, 11:30 – 13:00). The panel does include two politicians: Natan Sharansky, and Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, who must be facing a lot of issues of Judaism vs. democracy in his daily work.
Onward, Jewish soldiers, to “New Interpretations of an Ancient Identity: The Next Jewish Generation” (Wednesday, June 20, 11:30 AM – 1:00 PM) moderated by Ha’aretz English edition editor Charlotte Halle. The panel includes rich guy David Hatchwell, president of the Jewish Community of Madrid, who was also a member of the Madrid Vivo Foundation, which prepared the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Spain. Talk about new interpretations of an ancient identity. Then there’s the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, a contributing editor at The Forward, and Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg. Oh, and a singer from the Dag Nahash rap band.
Who on this panel has any connection whatsoever to me, to my shul, to our children? What does any of those folks know about the explosion of Torah learning in Israel, about our packed houses of worship, about our proliferation of loan societies, about our irrepressible demographics?
There's more too (including a panel about Jewish-Arab coexistence that has one Jew and five Arabs) - read the whole thing.
There's a list of panelists here (although I know at least one panelist who doesn't appear on that list, so maybe it's partial). There are some observant Jews there, but I have not yet gone through the conference program carefully enough to tell you where they're speaking.
I have not yet heard any comments on this from the conference organizers.
I don't know yet how much of today's sessions I'll make, but I do plan to be there for most of tomorrow and Thursday.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
