Powered by WebAds

Sunday, April 12, 2015

This may make Israelis want to rethink emigrating to the US

Unfortunately, we Israelis probably lead the world (in terms of percentage) in ex-pats. Last week, a newly arrived Israeli family in a San Diego suburb had a horrifying experience that has left them in fear.
More details here.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

An offensive campaign or an overreaction?

This is an event publicity poster I got from an organization of Yordim (emigrees from Israel) who once invited Avraham "Vinegar the Son of Wine" Burg to speak. Now they want to know if the ad campaign by the Absorption Ministry last month was offensive or whether the reaction to it was excessive.

I urge you all to go and argue the 'overreaction' side.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Time to move to Israel?

Remember that story a couple of weeks ago about the 'offensive' Absorption Ministry ads that tried to convince Israelis living in the US to move back to Israel? Well, get a load of this:

Now, you meet think this is a parody and the billboard might be (I suspect that it is, because of the blog name at its bottom. But the story actually is true. It happened in Laguna Beach, California.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Very funny: Hitler on Jeffrey Goldberg and the Absorption Ministry ads

I suppose this was inevitable. A Hitler parody on Jeffrey Goldberg and the Absorption Ministry ads urging Israelis to come home. Go ahead and click on it - you won't feel guilty.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jameel).

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Parody of absorpotion ministry ads

I suppose this was inevitable. And so was its source.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jeffrey Goldberg).



Yes, we all know how obnoxious some Israelis can be. And therefore?

Labels:

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, December 6.
1) Home on the op-ed page

Roger Cohen weighs in on the recently aborted Israeli campaign designed to encourage yordim (Israeli expatriates) to return to Israel in Come Home to Israel. Observing that PM Netanyahu quickly pulled the campaign when confronted by Israeli diplomats, Cohen wonders:
My second reaction is that if Netanyahu could show a fraction of the nimbleness evident when American Jews are offended in instances where Turks are offended (by the killing of their citizens in international waters), or where President Barack Obama is offended (by ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank against his express request), or where Egyptians are offended (by Israel’s dismissal of their democratic aspirations), then Israel would be in a better, less isolated place today.
Cohen's need to believe Israel is at fault is so strong he cites three examples which are true in the opinion pages of the New York Times, but not to those who are informed.

Claire Berlinski quoted an Israeli official on what prevented the agreement, which, according to a Turkish journalist was 95% complete. (h/t Elder of Ziyon):
Turkey, however, did not guarantee that "Turkish citizens and their legal representatives would not take legal action against Israel." It agreed to promise not to prosecute Israelis, but explained it could commit itself on behalf of private citizens in Turkey or abroad. This made some Israelis suspicious: what would happen if we endorsed the deal, and then had to face suits by members of the Turkish public, maybe even with covert assistance by the government? What guarantee did we have that the "deal" would actually end all claims and enable Israel and Turkey to reconcile and restart their relationship? This suspicion grew stronger in light of Turkey's insistence that the text should state that Israeli soldiers killed activists "intentionally." Why insist on this admission of guilt if not to enable legal action? As Gürsel himself says, this text which the Israeli government was supposed to approve was not completely agreed upon by Turkey, because they still wanted to include the intentionality wording. Even if the Israeli government had approved the draft, it would have left us with Turkish disavowal and discontent.
Another condition set forth by the Turks, and agreed to by Israel, was shelving the Palmer Report. Strange that Gürsel should say nothing of this, since he starts his discussion with the meaning of the Report to Turkey. The Turks were very keen on making the report disappear …
Finally, when it all came down to a discussion in the Israeli Cabinet, it wasn't just Lieberman who was reluctant to approve the whole package deal. Others, too, did not exactly trust Erdoğan, and raised doubts as to his real intentions: what would we get in return for the (indirect) apology, the compensations and the shelving of the report? Restoring ties with Ankara and an "end of conflict." But what if, after all was said and done, Erdoğan would claim that not all of his conditions were met? That Israel did not fulfill the requirements? All of a sudden, he speaks about lifting the siege on Gaza as a condition – but it was never mentioned in the negotiations nor in the draft! How easily it could have served as a pretext not to restore ties. And as for taking legal action against Israelis, well … With the intentionality clause still open, and with Turkey's non-commitment to stop private suits, and with the Palmer Report scrapped, where would it all lead us? Certainly not to an end of conflict, but rather to a further deterioration, with us in an inferior position.
In other words, Turkey was making last minute demands, something no rational negotiator would tolerate. The failure to come to an agreement was due to a last minute display of bad faith by Turkey, not to a lack of Israeli "nimbleness."

By the way, this account is consistent wit reporting in Cohen's paper, the New York Times. Back in August, Isabel Kershner reported:
The Israeli official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Turks kept adding conditions for a reconciliation, raising uncertainty in Mr. Netanyahu’s government over whether they were sincere and whether they would consider the case closed even if a deal were reached.
President Obama did indeed take offense at PM Netanyahu's actions, but Jackson Diehl shows that Netanyahu largely acquiesced to Obama's requests.
Though Netanyahu has recently allowed new settlement construction, it mostly has been in neighborhoods that Palestinian leders have already conceded will be part of Israel in a final settlement. This week he told his cabinet that West Bank outposts declared illegal by the Israeli Supreme Court would be uprooted.
In other words, Netanyahu has been an occasionally difficult but ultimately cooperative partner. He can be accused of moving too slowly and offering too little, but not of failing to heed American initiatives. And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? For nine of the ten months of the Israeli settlement moratorium he refused Obama’s appeals to begin negotiations; after two meetings, he returned to his intransigence. Rejecting a personal appeal from Obama, he took his bid for statehood to the United Nations, where he may yet force the United States to use its Security Council veto.
Finally it's not at clear that Egyptians are resentful of Israel due to Israel's insufficient enthusiasm for Egypt's democratic aspirations. Seth Frantzman recently wrote that historically, this just isn't true. Israel, in fact, has hoped for Arab democracy.
However, the historical reality diverges greatly from these claims. In his excellent 2002 book, "David Ben-Gurion, the State of Israel and the Arab World," Zakai Shalom shows that Israeli leadership in the early days of the state hoped that the Arab world would democratize. Ben-Gurion wrote in 1956 that "democratic government is not only government elections but government whose main concern is to provide for the people's basic needs. In nearly every one of the neighboring states a military dictatorship or juntas or federal government exists...The Egyptian people are in need of development, health and education. But a dictatorship that rules by military force, lacking the support and consent of the nation, cannot deal with these matters."
Ben-Gurion understood that Israel's most intractable enemies were the dictators, writing, "The King of Saudi Arabia declared his willingness to sacrifice ten million soldiers in the destruction of Israel. The Egyptian tyrant was somewhat more modest, he spoke of enlisting four million for this goal; for what are four million Egyptians in the eyes of this tyrant?"
Shalom writes that Ben-Gurion "rejected the claim that the absence of democracy in Arab countries should be considered as merely an ‘internal problem' of no import for Israel, for he believed that it held long-range implications for Arab foreign policy."
Israel's fear was not democracy, but that Islamists would take advantage of the vacuum of power, a fear, Barry Rubin notes, that has been realized.
Basically, nationalism has collapsed completely; liberalism is weak; moderate Muslims are few. Radical Islamism is the only game in town. Remember that. No alternative exists to an extremist, repressive, anti-Western, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian ideology. Thank you, President Obama and New York Times!
...the third largest party is the Egyptian bloc which consists mainly of the Free Egyptian Party along with smaller leftist and liberal parties and much of its vote comes from Christians, meaning that the proportion of Egyptian Muslims who voted for Islamist parties is even higher than it appears, say 80 percent by the end of the elections.
Where, you might ask, is the vaunted Facebook kids’ Justice Party and the supposed leader of the reformists, touted by the U.S. government as Egypt’s future leader, Muhammad ElBaradei? Answer: Nowhere.
On these three counts Cohen accepts the prevailing wisdom at the New York Times: Israel is at fault for its isolation. To be sure these pretexts allow Cohen (and his fellow travelers) to shed crocodile tears for the Israel he admires but no longer exists, but they are phony and easily refuted. Israel's nimbleness or lack of same is simply Cohen's excuse for bashing Israel.

While criticizing the ads, David Hazony writes that the reaction to the ads says more about the ads' and Israel's critics, than it says about Israel. I especially liked this:
Many American Jews have so little historical self-awareness, or cultural coherence, that they must express their outrage in places like the Atlantic and the Daily Beast, for fear that otherwise most Jews will not read them. What does that say about Jewish identity in America?
Related thoughts at Israel Matzav and Daled Amos.

2) Is Hezbollah strong or on the ropes?

Shoshana Bryen concludes in Lebanon: Hezbollah Digs In:
While the demise of the Assad regime in Syria would be a setback for the Islamic Republic – and is therefore much to be desired – nothing in Tehran's history indicates that it will allow its enormous investment in Hezbollah to dissipate at the same time. Underground, under cover, quiet and lethal, Hezbollah and its patron Iran are preparing for the next round – whether against Israel or against Lebanon.
Or both.
But Lee Smith recently wrote in Tablet, counter-intuitively, that Hezbollah is Fallible.
But the analysts have gotten it wrong on the bottom line. Though most experts and commentators are making this out to be bad for the CIA—and many current and former U.S. officials believe it is—it’s actually Hezbollah that comes out the big loser.
Hezbollah’s entire prestige is built on the idea that it is a highly disciplined organization that is nearly impossible to infiltrate. Indeed, Hezbollah General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah’s June speech announcing that Hezbollah had rolled up CIA assets was the party’s first public admission that it’d been compromised by hostile services. Hezbollah, said Nasrallah, had the “courage to confront the truth.”
The truth is that no matter how many American spies Hezbollah ultimately captured, being infiltrated by a hostile clandestine service is evidence of weakness. Moreover, as the Cold War showed, uncovering moles may result in tighter security measures, but the fact that they went unnoticed in the first place almost invariably demoralizes any organization built on loyalty and secrecy. In the 1960s and ’70s, paranoia crippled the CIA’s head of counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, after he became convinced that the agency had been penetrated by Soviet agents. In Hezbollah’s case, the damage will likely be worse, because this incident exposes the utter falsehood of the party of God’s divinely fashioned self-mythology.
Elliot Abrams points to another weakness of Hezbollah that seems to have been exposed:
What happened to those fiery words of yesteryear? Simple: the Syrian uprising. Nasrallah and Hezbollah will be among the great losers if the Assad regime is toppled, along with Iran and of course the Assad clan itself. Without Syrian support and the use of Syria for storage and the delivery of weaponry from Iran, Hezbollah will be weaker.
To be sure Hezbollah has amassed a frightening arsenal as Bryen has documented, but is it possible that a combination of factors has made it politically vulnerable?

3) But they're doing such a good job of it themselves

Richard Baehr offered a thorough rebuttal of Steve Sheffey's Jerusalem Post column at Israel Hayom, How dare you be Jewish and not vote for Obama?
Baehr followed the column up with one criticizing the administration's recent missteps regarding Israel, Three slaps and you're out?
Sheffey termed the criticism of the Obama administration's Middle East policies to be "delegitimizing" the President. Really, given this past weekend's gaffes, there's no need for outsiders to "delegitimize" the President for his handling of Middle East policy, his own administration is doing such a good job of it, with no external help.
Barry Rubin presents a definitive critique of the adminstration's approach to the Middle East in Obama’s Middle East Policy: A Unified Field Theory.

4) The woman in the Cobra

Israel Hayom profiles Maj. Maya in This woman's army:
She finished high school when she was 16 years and eight months old, and went to work in a shoe store until she joined the army. “I never dreamed of being a pilot. You have to remember that in the 1990s, girls in the pilots’ course were nothing but a dream. The first call-up order came, they started the sorting process, and asked me whether I wanted to go to the pilots’ course. Working with the machines, flying in the air, sounded interesting to me. I sent in an application. I said, ‘I will move ahead, stage by stage, and see what happens.’”
Her mother says that she signed the permission form allowing her daughter to enter the course with a great deal of fear and weeping. “I am the only child of parents who survived the Holocaust. Maya is also an only child. I could not sleep at night after I signed the form. During the course, I hoped that she would fail. That she would do everything she could to succeed, but that she would fail.”
Three hundred cadets started the course: 290 men and ten women. “I never believed I would graduate at any stage. It was a difficult two-year course, with physical and mental challenges. You have to be naive to think that you will be the one standing on the parade ground at the end, getting your wings. The right technique is to think about the next stage, not about the end.”

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Jews are better off in Israel or why the Absorption Ministry should not have pulled those ads

I have to tell you all that when I saw those ads on YouTube, my initial reaction was "this is so true." My next reaction - to the Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day) ad, which I saw first, was "only the Israelis are going to get this." Then I saw the kid calling Chanuka "Christmas" (which is the only ad that is not still working on my site - so click the link above and see the other two) and I thought back to this story from six years ago at this time (that link is from 2007).
Just to give you some appreciation for the scope of the problem, consider this story which appeared in the Jerusalem Post (originally) two years ago. Clearly, these people did not belong in State College, Pennsylvania (the wife is American, the husband Israeli, they left Israel for faculty positions at Penn State):

The truth is that after living so many years in Israel, we didn't give much thought to what Jewish life would be like out there in central Pennsylvania. We knew there was a small Jewish community centered around the university, one small synagogue with several hundred members, yet no full-time Jewish schools. But that was fine for us. After living so many years in Israel, we thought it would be a good idea for our children to experience something they could never experience in the Jewish state: feeling what it was like to be part of a minority.

James Carville, the political consultant and former Clinton aide, once said that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in between. This Alabama is precisely where we landed in the summer of 2004 with four Hebrew-speaking children who had never seen snow, sung Jingle Bells or heard Silent Night.

But not for long.

Right after Thanksgiving, when the neighbors began decorating their homes with Christmas lights and trees, we were able to confirm what we had suspected from the start: that we were the only Jewish family on the block. Next to all the brightly lit and ornamented homes, many of them featuring Nativity scenes on their front yards and giant Santas on their roofs, our own unlit undecorated house stuck out like a sore thumb.

Our third child, Iddo, then five years old, pleaded with us to dress up our house like all the others. Those lights are for Christmas, we tried to explain to him, and Jewish people don't celebrate Christmas. "Not even one teeny, tiny light?" he begged.

If that's when we learned we were outsiders in the neighborhood, our children had already discovered that they were not like everyone else in their respective schools. Matan, then in fifth grade, and Tamar, in third, turned out to be the only Jewish children in their public school. Iddo had one other Jewish child in his.

It was at about this time last year, when our children had their first exposure to Christmas, that we received an invitation to an evening event at their school called the "Holiday Sing." All we were told was that the children would be performing songs for their parents that they had learned in their music classes.

How could we have known what we were in for? It all started rather innocently with the children singing what we have since learned are called "secular Christmas songs" - an oxymoron if there ever was one. Granted, the name of Christ was not mentioned in these songs, but watching my little Jewish children up there on the stage with their classmates singing Christmas classics like Jingle Bells and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer did make me cringe.

And that wasn't the worst of it.

After the children had finished performing, a group of parents handed out sheets with the lyrics to all the songs that would be sung in the next part of the event, the group sing-along. That's where I was introduced for the first time to the lyrics of Silent Night. To say that I was stunned to find myself in an American public school surrounded by parents and children singing out verses like "Christ, the Savior is born," "Son of God, love's pure light," and "Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth" would be an understatement.

The auditorium was so crowded that Amit and I were forced to sit at opposite ends. Somehow, though, we managed to exchange horrified glances across the room. Silent Night was followed by several other religious Christian songs, and then, as if to add insult to injury, Dreidel, Dreidel, I Made it Out of Clay - a silly Hanukka song popularized in America.

After we came home and put the children to sleep, Amit and I stayed up late talking about what we should do, feeling rather sickened by the entire experience, but thankful, at least, that our children were still not fluent enough in English to understand what had been taking place around them.

Read it all.
At Asia Times, Spengler writes that the vehement reaction to the ads in the United States has one small problem: While they're outrageous and insulting, they're also true (Hat Tip: Sunlight).
The vehemence of the official Jewish response to the Israeli advertisements betrays a guilty conscience: Jewish life in America is dying, as the same Jewish organizations warn in ever-gloomier studies of Jewish demographics. It seems inconsistent of the Jewish organizations to bewail the inexorable decline of American Jewish life on one hand, and condemn the Israelis for pointing to their manifest achievements in sustaining Jewish life.

The tragedy is that Jews have stopped being Jews because America has stopped being America. The Pilgrim Fathers founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in conscious emulation of the people of Israel, undertaking a new Mission in the Wilderness to found a new Chosen People in a New Promised Land. From this emerged what Abraham Lincoln called an "almost-chosen people", a secular and democratic nation defined by the biblical concept of covenant.

Mainstream American culture holds in contempt the idea of a divine grantor of rights who has established individual freedom beyond the prerogative of any government to impinge. For the minority who understand the American founding as a continuation of the covenant of Mount Sinai, the survival of the Jewish people is proof that God's promises never attenuate; for mainstream culture, the Jews are a curious remnant of antique superstition. That is how most American Jews see the matter, and that is why most of them do not much trouble to be Jewish.

In principle, Jewish life should flourish in the United States. As Eric Nelson of Harvard demonstrated in his 2010 book The Hebrew Republic, the political theory by which America was founded drew on post-biblical rabbinic sources. Nowhere (except in the State of Israel) should Jews feel more at home than in America, whose founding drew on their classical sources.

Sadly, American Jews stand out as a horrible example of demographic failure. In the United States, secular and loosely affiliated American Jews, that is, the vast majority, have the lowest fertility rate of any identifiable segment of the American population.

...

In Israel, by contrast, the Jewish fertility rate stands at around 3 children per female, by far the highest in the industrial world. Aside from the ultra-Orthodox minority, which has seven or eight children, the non-Orthodox Jewish fertility rate is around 2.6 children per female.

...

On reflection, American Jews should reconsider their umbrage at Israel's Immigration Ministry. Their own organizations are painfully aware that loosely affiliated Jews of all shadings are falling away from the Jewish community, failing to bring enough children in the world to replace their existing numbers, and failing to raise them as Jews.

The controversial videos, in short, did nothing to insult American Jews. But the fact is that the Israelis run circles around their American co-religionists.

...

Israelis grow up with sense of urgency for excellence; in their neighborhood, First Prize is the chance to compete for First Prize once again, and Second Prize is, you're dead. American Jews live under no threat whatever; having made good in America, they have all the room in the world for indolence and self-deception.

Whatever the Jews are, they are not stupid, and American Jews knew perfectly well in 2008 that the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, was a more reliable supporter of Israel's security than Barack Obama. Yet 78% of American Jews voted for Obama, in part because the liberal social agenda mattered more to them, and in part because they continued to believe in the Rabin-Arafat handshake long after the Israelis had written it off. (Audience: If you believe in the Peace Process, clap your hands!)

Liberalism is a self-liquidating proposition, and there are no liberals like Jewish liberals, who are a soon-to-be-endangered species. The sad thing is not that the liberal leadership of American Jewish organizations is complaining about Israel, but that they won't be around much longer to complain about anything.
Read the whole thing. Only civil comments will be allowed.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Advertising campaign to encourage Israelis to return home

Israel's Absorption Ministry has a number of advertising campaigns in the US to try to convince Israelis to return home to Israel (and to try to convince their families here to keep trying to convince them).

Here are some of the advertisements (they're short). Parts of them will be difficult for the Hebrew challenged. This one is Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day).

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Gary P).



Here's another one. This one is called Before Chanuka becomes Christmas.

Let's go to the videotape.



And this one is called Before Abba becomes Daddy.

Let's go to the videotape.



It's sad that Israelis need to be reminded like this, but they do.

The conventional wisdom used to be that adjustment problems were only getting used to Israel, and not getting used to another country (usually the US). Recently, we heard about some friends' kids who moved back to the US because they weren't making it here financially, but we heard that their kids are totally miserable. Maybe they'll come back someday.

Labels:

Sunday, July 31, 2011

How many Israelis have left?

Yoav Karasenty and Shmuel Rosner debunk the claim that a million Israelis have left since the country attained its independence.
We should start with this simple statement: There are not a "million missing Israelis." A study conducted under the auspices of our think tank, the Jewish People Policy Institute -- one that has not yet been released but will be published in a couple of weeks -- will put the real number of "missing" Israelis at a much lower number. According to Israel's Bureau of Statistics, since the establishment of the state up until the end of 2008, 674,000 Israelis left the country and did not return after more than a year abroad. An unknown number, estimated to be between 102,000 and 131,000, have died since, putting the number of living Israelis abroad at the end of 2008 at 543,000 to 572,000 (if one counts the dead abroad, one should also count the dead in Israel -- this will not change the number of leaving Israelis but will definitely change the percentage of them).

An updated model developed by the Bureau of Statistics at the end of 2008 put the number of not-returning Israelis abroad at 518,000, but added to it a category of 290,000 "non-resident" Israelis. This last number is a tricky one, as it includes the children of Israelis born abroad if they were registered with the Israeli authorities. Such children have never lived in Israel and can hardly be considered "missing," but if one adds them to the mix one gets to 808,000 Israelis, of which more than 100,000 have already died. Bottom line: Some 670,000 to 700,000 official "Israelis" (including children) live outside Israel today.

But here's where the narrative gets more complicated. Much more complicated -- and fascinating -- if one cares to understand the real story of missing Israelis. Israel is a country of many immigrants, as Chamie and Mirkin did bother to note when they wrote about "another important factor contributing to the outflow of Jewish Israelis," that is, "previous emigration experience." But they didn't quite explain the meaning of what they'd written: Israel is a melting pot for some -- not unlike the United States -- but also a stop-on-the-way-to-someplace-else for others. In many cases, it is a gateway for people escaping repressive regimes or poverty.

Take, for example, the huge wave of immigrants who flew in droves to Israel after the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to Israeli Interior Ministry records, 1.1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union entered Israel between January 1989 and December 2002. However, 8.8 percent of those newcomers -- some 100,000 olim (the Hebrew term used to describe those choosing to "climb up" to Israel) -- had decided not to remainRe in Israel and quite quickly moved on to their countries of choice. Should such newcomers be counted as "leaving Israelis"? Should their departure be considered a blow to Zionist dreams? Or maybe these immigrants were merely people leaving the Soviet Union, making the first available escape, without ever seriously considering Israel as their long-term place of residence?
Read the whole thing. It only seems like every pizza and felafel joint in the US is owned by Israelis. Or there aren't a million of them.

Labels: ,

Google