data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/abf41/abf41e3eef5b1b957e8e3e45671c2a1bc5a8e0e8" alt=""
C'est Moi...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1fd2/f1fd2affb4151df4c7b07ea6b0817b792267d4f9" alt="Posted by Hello"
Your Brain is Green |
![]() |
We're all Israelis Now***Just the way he chooses to spell his name tells me he is ashamed of his Jewish origin. "LeVine" as if he was French or something.
By Mark LeVine, History, University of California,
Irvine
****That like Israelis, Americans would never face the causes of the extreme violence perpetrated against us by those whose oppression we have supported and even enforced,"
For me, however, the attacks suggested a more troubling
scenario: That like Israelis, Americans would never face the causes of the
extreme violence perpetrated against us by those whose oppression we have
supported and even enforced, and engage in the honest introspection of what our
role has been in generating the kind of hatred that turns commuter jets into
cruise missiles. Instead, my gut told me that we'd acquiesce to President Bush's
use of the war to realize the long-held imperial, even apocalyptic visions of
the neoliberal Right, ones that find great sympathy with its Israeli
counterpart.
As I watch George W. Bush celebrate his reelection I realize I never could have***"in Israel, the majority of Jewish citizens support the policies of Ariel Sharon despite the large-scale, systematic (and according to international law, criminal) violence his government deploys against Palestinian society, despite the worsening economic situation for the lower middle class religious voters who constitute his main base of support, "
imagined just how much like Israelis we would become. Think about it: in Israel,
the majority of Jewish citizens support the policies of Ariel Sharon despite the
large-scale, systematic (and according to international law, criminal) violence
his government deploys against Palestinian society, despite the worsening
economic situation for the lower middle class religious voters who constitute
his main base of support, despite rising international opprobrium and isolation.
Sound familiar?
As for the country's "liberal" opposition, it's in a shambles, politically and
morally bankrupt because in fact it was a willing participant in creating and
preserving the system that is now eating away at the heart of Israeli society.
Aside from occasional plaintive oped pieces by members of its progressive wing,
the Labor Party can and will do nothing fundamentally to challenge Sharon's
policies. Why? Because they reflect an impulse, nurtured by the Labor movement
during its decades in power, that is buried deep in the heart of Zionism: to
build an exclusively Jewish society on as much of the ancient homeland as
possible, with little regard for the fate of the country's native
inhabitants.
As any native American will remind us, America was built on a similar holy
quest. So it shouldn't surprise us that the parallels between Israel's
mini-empire and America's Iraq adventure are striking.
In Israel most citizens know full well the realities of their occupation; even
right-wing newspapers routinely publish articles that describe its details with
enough clarity to make any ignorance willful. This dynamic is in fact why
Israelis have responded to the civil war with Palestinians by increasing the
dehumanization of the occupation, accompanied by a fervent practice of getting
on with life no matter what's happening ten or fifteen miles away in "the
Territories." The alternative, actually working to stop the insanity of the
occupation, would lead to much more hatred and violence within Israel and
between Jews than Palestinians could ever hope to inflict on Israeli society
from the outside. The situation is almost identical vis-à-vis the American
perspective on Iraq. Abu Ghraib?
The numbing acceptance of large scale and systematic violence perpetrated
by the state as a normal part of its exercise of power and the willingness of a
plurality of the electorate to support parties and policies which are manifestly
against their economic and social interests
(as demonstrated by the increase in poverty and economic insecurity across
the board in Israel
***LOL.
In the meantime, the international community, especially the EU,
most assert a defiant tone against US and Israeli militarism and perform the
novel but fundamental role acting as a counterweight and alternative to
America's imperial vision
Mark Levine
Associate Professor of History
Department of History
Murray Krieger Hall
Irvine, CA 92697-3275
Recently, I was able to access all of the e-mails stored since 2000 on my
busted laptop. Occasionally, there are requests for this classic, by Sarah
Meir. If she hasn't posted it in some form to her blogsite, she should. It
deals with one of the more important halachic issues Jews face here, the
Halacha of the Mangal. This is one of those issues where spreading heat is
as important as spreading light. The rabbanit speaks below in response to a
she'elah. The one asking the she'elah is b"h on his way here soon with his
family from Minneapolis.
Reuven
"The Jewish Agency gives Nefesh B'Nefesh a lot of credit for increasing aliyah [from North America] between 2002 and 2003," said Jewish Agency spokesman Michael Jankelowitz. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating. They proved that the way they work increases aliyah from North America, so the next step is a strategic partnership with them."
Jankelowitz explained that the Jewish Agency will allocate funds and services toward the administrative costs of Nefesh B'Nefesh "so that they can do more of what they have been doing, and help more and more immigrants."
Preserving the rights of the most contemptible
By Moshe Gorali (Haaretz)
The court record suggests the justices of the Supreme Court might disagree with the judge who this week denied conjugal visits to assassin Yigal Amir.
Just as Israeli democracy had difficulty dealing with the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, so too it is finding it difficult to deal with the challenge now being presented by Amir himself.
Three years ago, the Knesset passed a special law that was designed to prevent him from ever being released from prison.
The law was not presented for constitutional review, which it is doubtful it would have withstood as it was designated for a specific person; because it creates cruel and unusual punishment; and because the Knesset's job is to set norms for the future and not punishments after the fact.
Judge David Bar-Ophir ruled at the beginning of the week that Amir was forbidden from having conjugal visits with his fiancee, which aroused no little criticism among legal scholars, who doubted the ruling would pass the test of the Supreme Court.
"It's a primitive decision," says a retired senior judge. Prof. Daphne Barak-Erez said after the ruling that "the real test of a democratic country that is strict about human rights, is in the preservation of the rights of the most contemptible, the most abominable and the most dangerous."
Regarding the ruling itself, Barak-Erez says: "The judge's decision to define conjugal visits as a privilege is problematic, and affects the outcome."
It is quite probable, in fact, that the Supreme Court, should the issue be brought up before it, will promote conjugal visits from the low status of "a privilege" to the status of "a basic right."
In 1987, when the Supreme Court was dealing with the right of prisoners to conjugal visits, Justice Menachem Alon wrote in a decision:
"The right to sexual relations and to conjugal visits with a partner is a basic, natural and humane right for any person, and the punishment of denial of freedom does not automatically include the denial of this basic right."
Like every right, this right too can be restricted. But whereas a privilege can be given and denied perfunctorily, the restriction of a basic right requires very weighty reasons.
Judge Bar-Ophir adopted the view of the Israel Prisons Service (IPS) and the Shin Bet security service, which claimed in the state's reply to Amir's request that "the rule is that a security prisoner shall not be given the possibility of receiving conjugal visits, unless the General Security Service [Shin Bet] has expressly stated that it has no objection to them. In the above case, the security factors ... have positively expressed their opinion against allowing conjugal visits, for reasons of state security."
That is the position of the Shin Bet, which is based on classified material that was submitted to the judge, as well as on the following reasons: Amir did not express regret for his crimes; there is a fear that he will not hesitate to use his partner for the purpose of undermining public security and order; as well as the fact that he is "an object of admiration and a model for emulation for others," as the attorneys wrote. "For this reason as well, there is room to insist on preventing his unsupervised contact with the outside."
The state, responding to the appeal, noted there are 3,300 security prisoners in Israel, and only a few have been allowed conjugal visits. One of them is Ami Popper, who murdered seven Arabs.
"It's not clear why there should be different procedures for security prisoners," says Barak-Erez. "The classification, for the purpose of denying rights, must be the degree of danger presented by the prisoner, and not his categorization as a security prisoner or a criminal. I also find it surprising at the massive reliance on classified information, which constitutes the center of gravity of the ruling."
The danger presented by Amir, which can be the basis for denying his right to conjugal visits, is supposed to be real, not theoretical, and not a matter of hindsight. It should be backed by evidence, and the near certainty of its being realized must be proven. For example, we must be convinced that Amir will exploit the conjugal visits in order to transfer messages of incitement via his fiancee, or perhaps instructions to his followers to murder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon because of Sharon's insistence on the disengagement plan.
In view of what is known about the man's character and his past, the Shin Bet is apparently not taking any chances, and is presenting such a theory, or a similar one. It succeeded in convincing Judge Bar-Ophir. The question is whether the Supreme Court will also "buy" the theory about the real danger presented by Amir.
The Supreme Court has a rich tradition of improving the lives of prisoners, both in word and in deed. "Prison walls do not separate the prisoner from human dignity," said Justice Aharon Barak in 1980, a statement that has been often cited since then.
Barak said that in the famous ruling in which the Supreme Court (in an particularly strong panel: Moshe Landau, Haim Cohn and Barak), forbade the IPS to carry out an enema on prisoners to reveal drugs hidden inside their bodies. The Supreme Court rejected the enema on the basis of damage to human dignity, and preferred this value even at the expense of learning the truth, and perhaps even if it meant letting a criminal go free.
This logic guided Barak, about 20 years later, in a ruling that forbade the Shin Bet from using torture in dealing with Palestinian prisoners; at that time Barak enriched Israeli legal decisions with another statement: "Democracy often fights with one hand tied behind its back."
Right to vote
In 1959, an appeal by prisoners to participate in the Knesset elections was rejected, because of the expense involved in order to make that possible. In 1981 there was a sign of change, when the Supreme Court ruled that "this is one of the basic rights of the citizen ... a right that was not denied by law to a person serving a prison sentence."
And in fact, three years later, during the 1984 elections, the judges forced the Knesset to amend the Knesset Elections Law to enable prisoners and detainees to participate in the elections.
In another case, in 1974, the court rejected the decision of the prison director not to allow prisoner Rami Livneh to bring the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao into the prison, for fear that bringing in the books would arouse political arguments among the prisoners. Justice Haim Cohn wrote in the decision at the time:
"We praise the director of the prison for always having before him the maintenance of quiet between the prison walls, but we haven't heard that in the name of `maintaining quiet' he can prevent arguments among the prisoners, including political arguments. As long as discipline and order are maintained in the prison, the prisoners are allowed to argue among themselves about any subject they choose; and if discipline and order are disturbed, those who cause the disturbance will be held to account for their behavior, but they will not be held to account for the subject of their argument."
The unique status of security prisoners is discussed in a ruling from 1996 that dealt with the appeal of terrorist Samir Kuntar to expand his right to telephone calls.
Justice Yitzhak Zamir wrote at the time that "the main interests that must be considered in determining an arrangement regarding the communication of security prisoners with the outside world, alongside the right of the prisoner, are order and security, not only in the prison itself, but outside the prison as well. That means that the security of the state is an interest that must be considered in this matter. Because a person is confined in jail not only as a punishment for a crime, but in order to protect society from him."
In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression is a constitutional right even for prisoners. At the time, prisoner Avi Golan wanted to write a column for a local Netanya newspaper, and the IPS prohibited it. District Judge Arye Even-Ari adopted the view of the IPS, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling by a majority of two, Eliahu Mazza and Dalia Dorner, versus Mishael Cheshin.
The debate among the justices also touched indirectly on the issue of conjugal visits. Mazza and Dorner ruled that freedom of expression is part of human dignity, and therefore it is a right even for prisoners, and Cheshin differed with them. In his opinion, freedom of expression is not part of human dignity. He feels that other rights derive from human dignity: the right to sleep in a bed, for example, and the right to conjugal visits.
If the clear stance of Menachem Alon in 1987 is joined to the remark by Justice Cheshin, there is no doubt that Judge Bar-Ophir erred in his classification of conjugal visits - they are a basic right, rather than a privilege.
The third Gay Parade to take place in the capital Thursday afternoon has already drawn fire, even before it has begun. Rabbi David Batzri, a famous Jerusalem mystic, said that the punishment of homosexuals would come in their next reincarnation – as rabbits and bunnies.
Jerusalem Post
Jordan appeals for world's help to save Dead Sea
Jordan appealed Tuesday for international assistance to help save the ecosystem of the Dead Sea, whose water level is dropping.
The surface level of the sea - the saltiest water in the world and the lowest point on earth - has fallen 1 meter (3.3 feet) a year for at least the past 20 years because of evaporation and the diversion of rivers by Syria and Israel.
Experts warn the Dead Sea will disappear in 50 years if current trends persist.
One solution would be for Jordan and Israel to draw water from the Red Sea, which lies at the end of the long valley in which the Dead Sea lies. The two countries have agreed on the plan, but they are waiting for funding approval from the World Bank and other donor countries.
"We appeal to water experts attending this conference to help us explain the crisis of the Dead Sea at international forums," Jordanian Water and Irrigation Minister Hazem al-Nasser said Tuesday. He was speaking on the sidelines of a five-day meeting on water held at the Dead Sea resort of Southern Shuneh, 45 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of the capital, Amman.
"The Dead Sea is a unique international treasure, and it's the world's responsibility to take decisive action immediately to save this treasure," al-Nasser said.
He said the receding of the sea will have negative consequences, such as the formation of sink holes, 20 meters (66 feet) in depth.
The conference brought together some 1,500 experts and officials from 30 countries to discuss the management of water.
Al-Nasser said Israel had presented Jordan with a draft plan that envisages drawing water from the Red Sea through a canal to be built along the Jordanian-Israeli border.
The project, which is expected to cost more than US$1 billion, would exploit the 400-meter (1,320-foot) difference in altitude between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea.
Associated Press Jun. 1, 2004
Yahalom slams nursing plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich Jun. 1, 2004 (Jerusalem Post)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging the Health Ministry with aiming to "destroy schools of nursing" through a plan that is "liable to be catastrophic to the health system," Knesset Labor, Social Affairs, and Health Committee chairman Shaul Yahalom has demanded the ministry "immediately halt" its plan to allow training only for academic graduates.
Yahalom (NRP) demanded that the ministry wait until the plan is reassessed and presented in an organized and clear way.
Ministry nursing administration head Dr. Shosh Reba presented the plan, which includes the closing of nursing schools and and transferring students to universities and colleges, at a meeting of the committee on Monday.
Under the plan, non-academic registered nurses and practical nurses will not be trained, but only academically trained nurses.
Opponents of the plan said it will produce "an army of senior officers without soldiers." The US, England, and Australia, which had adopted such a program, are now suffering from a severe shortage of nurses and reopening nursing schools that offer various levels of training.
There are even cases of importing foreign nurses, they said. The opponents said that even though the plan has not been formally approved, registration for nursing schools attached to hospitals has declined to half, and that the fate of new classes in September is in doubt.
The ministry responded by saying that "there is no danger at all to the training of nurses."
A conference to discuss the plan is to be held on Thursday, and the program will be brought to Health Minister Dan Naveh for approval.
The ministry has promised that the plan will not be implemented until it is presented to MK Ilana Cohen, who is also chairman of the Israel Nurses Union, and members of the Knesset committee.
"Without any connection to the plan, the ministry has been asked following a cabinet decision to reach an agreement with the universities on finding a solution for academic training of nurses. They would study for an academic degree and get clinical experience in the hospitals like other medical professionals," a ministry spokesman said.
"In addition, the ministry and the Council for Higher Education are working toward a solution in which students at hospital nursing schools without an academic framework will be able to get academic training in the universities."