In praise of liberal arts

The crisis in Israeli universities’ humanities departments is deepening. As we gear up for the new academic year, yet another decrease has been registered in the number of university students studying subjects such as history, literature, languages, Jewish studies or philosophy.

Of the total number of students registered for the academic year of 2011-12, just 7.5 percent have chosen to study in one of the humanities departments, down from 7.9% last year.

This year’s modest drop comes after a long trend of dwindling interest in the humanities. In 1999, for instance, humanities departments were the second most popular after social sciences, making up 18.5% of the student body.

Part of the decline in the number of students learning humanities has to do with Israeli idiosyncrasies. In the early 1990s, for instance, smaller colleges began for the first time to compete with established universities.

Students with mediocre grades or low psychometric test scores who were once unable to get accepted to universities’ prestigious, job-oriented faculties such as law, economics or psychology, could now apply to smaller colleges with less rigorous requirements, instead of settling for the universities’ humanities departments.

Also, after a significant military stint (a minimum of two years for women and three years for men), Israeli university students are more likely than their American or European counterparts to pursue a “no nonsense” course of studies that leads to employment after graduation.

And Israeli universities are particularly focused on competing to enter the rankings of the top 50 universities in the world. Bolstering the hard sciences and emphasizing faculty research at the expense of humanities and teaching – which count for less in the rankings – are the most effective ways of achieving this goal.

But the decline of humanities is also part of a larger cultural and social trend plaguing the West that prioritizes efficiency, tangibility and productivity above all else. Since one’s familiarity with Homer or Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, the Talmud or Shakespeare cannot be commoditized, it remains unappreciated.

A generation of university and college graduates are the product of an increasingly myopic educational experience which might have imparted the know-how to get things done, but not the reasons why to bother.

A good liberal-arts education resulting from the in-depth study of classic texts and timeless ideas provides a number of important skills essential for the education of a new generation of leaders in the fields of journalism, politics, military and even business and science.

On the most basic level, liberal-arts graduates tend to hone written, verbal expression and critical thinking abilities.

But on a deeper level, exposure to the greatest thought humanity has to offer broadens intellectual horizons and might help innovators in many different fields to fuse diverse ideas and concepts in creative and unique ways.

THANKFULLY, A NUMBER of initiatives aspire to reverse the decline of liberal arts. Perhaps most significant among them is the Shalem Center’s ambitious project to create Israel’s first liberal-arts college, slated to open its doors in the fall of 2012.

Meanwhile, Prof. Manuel Trajtenberg, who in addition to heading the socioeconomic reform committee that bears his name, is also chairman of the Planning and Budget Committee of the Council for Higher Education, has set in motion changes in the way undergraduates earn degrees. Students will be required to take “prerequisite courses” that are outside their specific fields of expertise to broaden general knowledge.

It is impossible to measure the damage caused by narrow- mindedness. But there can be little doubt that one-dimensional thinking debilitates.




Our founders – from Yitzhak Tabenkin and Berl Katzenelson to David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin, and many others – were men and women with profound knowledge of their own culture as well as the best of Western culture. As a result they all had well articulated world views on how best to go about creating the Jewish people’s first sovereign state in nearly two millennia.

One of the goals of our higher-education system must be to produce a cadre of exceptional men and women comparable in stature to Israel’s founders who are capable of leading Israel into the 21st century.

A strong grounding in humanities is essential for achieving this goal.

Gaza and Egypt

Last Wednesday night, Islamic Jihad fired a Grad rocket that struck near Rehovot to mark the October 1995 assassination in Malta of Islamic Jihad leader Fathi Shikaki, a murderously zealous ideologue inspired by the Islamic revolution in Iran and an avid supporter of suicide bombings as a means of terrorizing Israel.

Various news media, including the BBC, have reported that the Mossad was responsible for Shikaki’s assassination.

The situation quickly deteriorated. On Saturday afternoon, Israel retaliated, launching a sortie against an Islamic Jihad cell preparing to carry out additional rocket attacks against Israel. Five terrorists were killed, including Ahmed Sheikh Khalil, a senior figure who was responsible for the organization’s rocket production facilities.

Enraged by Khalil’s demise, Islamic Jihad fired more than 20 rockets and mortar shells at Israel, one of which killed Moshe Ami, a father of four from Ashkelon. Four others were wounded in the barrage.

The tragic irony is that the cell operated from what used to be Bnei Atzmon, one of 17 Jewish communities making up Gush Katif. These Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip were forcibly evacuated in the summer of 2005 as part of a unilateral move to end “occupation” and facilitate the beginnings of Palestinian statehood.

Instead of being used for development and prosperity, this evacuated land has become the launching pad for death and destruction.




Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, has no interest in entering into a military confrontation with Israel right now. It has too much to lose.

Prolonged fighting could delay or even endanger the second phase of the Schalitdeal, in which an additional 550 Palestinians prisoners are slated to be released.

Hamas is also interested in maintaining quiet and stability in order to foster relations with Egypt.

Post-Mubarak Egypt is taking an increasingly active role in the Gaza Strip. Cairo was instrumental in helping to clinch a shaky cease-fire agreement between Islamic Jihad and Israel early Sunday. The deal did not hold, with more rockets being fired into Israel.

A day earlier, for the first time since Hamas seized control from Fatah in June 2007, representatives of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood visited the Gaza Strip. This was yet another clear signal of a shift in Cairo’s posture toward the Islamist movement since the ouster in February of Hosni Mubarak. And with the Muslim Brotherhood expected to fare well in Egypt’s upcoming elections, Hamas has an even more pressing interest in maintaining calm so as to consolidate its ties with Cairo while strengthening its control over Gaza.

At the same time, Hamas, which could easily stop Islamic Jihad’s attacks against Israel if it wanted to, is under pressure, in particular from Iran, Islamic Jihad’s patron, to accommodate the rejectionist camp, at least for a limited period.

Hamas was placed in a similar situation in August, when the Palestinian Popular Resistance Committees carried out a series of cross-border attacks near the Egyptian border that left eight Israelis dead. Hamas felt compelled at the time to join the firing, but only after sensing it was losing popularity in the Arab street to the more extreme factions.

Hamas’s warming relations with Egypt might lend some short-term stability to the Gaza Strip.

But Cairo’s willingness to strengthen ties with an anti-Semitic terrorist organization bent on destroying the Jewish state is also testimony to a change for the worse in the new Egypt.

With the Muslim Brotherhood expected to notch up an impressive victory in the upcoming Egyptian elections, the ties between Egypt and Gaza will inevitably strengthen further, while relations between Cairo and Jerusalem will undoubtedly suffer.

And that cannot augur well for the region, or for the peace process in the Middle East.

Beaches vs business

It took nearly four years of protests, including a petition signed by more than 28,000 concerned citizens, a human wave one-kilometer long, and regular picketing. But finally the objective was achieved.

Grassroots activism, a testament to the power of civic involvement, succeeded in nixing the building of a huge vacation village that would have included an amusement park, anartificial lake and a commercial center sprawling on over 200 dunams (20 hectares) of prime Mediterranean seashore.

If the project had been built, large stretches of Betzet Beach, some of the most beautiful beachfront in the North, would have either been scarred by commercial development or made inaccessible to the wider public.




Activists were fighting an uphill battle. The developers had already won a state tender. The project had the backing of Mateh Asher Regional Council head Yehuda Shavit. It had already been approved by the Israel Lands Authority and had reached the final stages before construction could begin.

But public opposition was unstoppable. Bolstered by support from organizations such as the Society for the Protection of Nature and the Israel Union for Environment Defense (Adam, Teva V’din), residents in the North managed to convince key politicians and government officials to scrap the plans. Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan and Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Attias convinced newly appointed Israel Lands Authority Director Benzi Lieberman to enter negotiations to get the companies that had won the bid to stop work at Betzet.

Nor was this the first time a group of citizens had come up against big business interests and won. About six months ago, the cabinet ruled to freeze a plan to build a 350-room vacation village on the Palmahim Beach, which, as in the case of Betzet, had also received all the necessary building permits. In fact, the Palmahim beach had already been fenced off and contractors had begun preparing the area for construction. Nevertheless, after over two years of demonstrations the public convinced the cabinet to order the regional council responsible for Palmahim Beach to halt the project.

The successful campaigns against the projects at Palmahim and Betzet, alongside the socioeconomic protests over the summer, are all signs that Israeli society has undergone a profound change. Civic responsibility and empowerment of the “little guy” – the foundations of any healthy democracy – are taking the place of apathy and indifference.

Though activists have stopped large building projects in the past such as the Safdie plan in west Jerusalem and a proposed settlement in the Gilboa area, the Palmahim and Betzet victories are unique in the sense that activists managed to halt projects after they had been approved by regional building councils.

However, Palmahim and Betzet also raise questions about how best to balance free market forces with environmental responsibility. The construction firms behind the Palmahim and Betzet projects have undoubtedly invested millions of shekels in planning and development over the years. And if they had been built, the projects would have created jobs and tax revenues and attracted tourism.

The building contractors might be accused of putting their narrow business interests before environmental concerns, but they did not break any laws. All stages of development received official authorization.

At the same time, Palmahim and Betzet beaches are priceless resources that belong to the public, and the public, via grassroots protests, made clear it does not want its assets auctioned to the highest bidder, even if it means forgoing the economic benefits offered by the projects.

Therefore, while it is perfectly legitimate to freeze the Betzet and Palmahim projects in the name of environmental protection, it is absolutely imperative that building contractors be compensated for their losses and that alternative building sites be found. Protecting our environment should not lead to the trampling of private business rights.

Hit-and-run crimes

A decade ago, then-Supreme Court justice Mishael Cheshin remarked in a hit-and-run case that the driver’s despicable act “strikes a blow to the minimal requisite solidarity needed to maintain a healthy society… and it is only fitting that the driver be punished in the harshest way within the framework of the law.”

Tragically, in June of last year Cheshin experienced first hand the horror of the hit-and-run when his son, Shneor, 43, was run down while cycling. Tal Mor, 27, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, not only abandoned Cheshin, leaving him to die on the side of the road, but also attempted to cover up his heinous crime.




Though he deserved it, Mor was, unfortunately, not “punished in the harshest way within the framework of the law.”

A 12-year-prison sentence was handed down, along with NIS 30,000 in compensation to the Cheshin family and the revoking of Mor’s driver’s license for 20 years, by Judge Zacharia Caspi of the Petah Tikva Central District Court.

“Twelve years is by no means a light sentence,” Prof. Emmanuel Gross, an expert in criminal law from the University of Haifa, told The Jerusalem Post Sunday, “but the court could have been harsher.”

Could have and should have.

The phenomenon of hit-and-runs is a blight on our society. And the frequency with which Israelis, brought up on the Zionist ethic of mutual responsibility and shared fate, choose to cowardly run away from the scene of an accident is shocking.

According to data provided by the Israel Police’s traffic department based on the past decade, there are on average about 700 hit-and-runs a year in which about 1,000 people are injured and some 18 people are killed.

Yet our courts are wary of handing down truly harsh sentences when a reckless driver kills or handicaps for life innocent pedestrians or cyclists (most hit-and-runs do not involve another car) and abandons the scene – and the victim – in a futile attempt to escape justice (the vast majority of hit-and-run perpetrators and quickly apprehended).

Too often we hear of plea bargains being reached such as in the case of 12-year-old Amir Balahsan of Yehud, who was reduced to a vegetative state by hitand- run perpetrator Pnina Toren and passenger Omri Naim. The two were sentenced to three years.

In January, the Supreme Court actually reduced the sentence of a particularly unsavory hit-and-run offender. In 2008, a drunk Shai Simon sped through a red light and plowed into Meital Aharonson, 27, and Mali Yazdi while they crossed a Tel Aviv street and then drove off, abandoning them. Aharonson was killed, Yazdi was doomed to spend her life in a wheelchair.

In the harshest punishment handed down for a manslaughter charge involving a road accident, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Zvi Gurfinkel sentenced Simon to 20 years in jail. But on appeal, the Supreme Court lowered Simon’s sentence to 14 years, arguing that the 20-year decision “radically exceeded the conventional punishment.”

We have in the past criticized the Supreme Court’s pedantic adherence to the principle of sentencing consistency, disregarding in the process the need to punish Simon’s contempt for human life, made doubly worse by very calculated cover-up tactics. We might now add that the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence handed down by Judge Gurfinkel might have been in Judge Caspit’s mind when he ruled on the Cheshin case.

No judge wants to see his ruling overturned by a higher court.

Under the circumstances, we welcome a new bill, drafted by MKs Moshe Matlon and Robert Elituv (Israel Beiteinu) and Ze’ev Bielski (Kadima) that would ban plea bargains in hit-and-run cases. It would also increase the maximum sentence for a fatal hit-and-run – not including other offenses such as driving under the influence or obstructing justice – to 14 years from just seven to nine years at present. The seven-to-nine- year maximum would be transformed into the minimum.

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee approved the bill earlier thismonth for its second and third readings. Let’s hope it becomes law soon. If judges refuse to heed the call of retired justice Cheshin for harsh punishment against hit-and-run criminals, lawmakers are right to step in and force them to do so.

Democracy in Tunisia

In his 1991 book The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, political scientist Samuel Huntington argued that Tunisia was a prime candidate for democracy. Since Huntington’s book was published this became even more true.

The country’s impressive economic growth, educated middle class, high rate of female literacy, strong sense of a unified national identity, non-politicized military, and relatively active civil culture of labor unions and Bar association seemed to position the Maghreb country particularly well for a democratic system of government.

Huntington’s assessment now seems to have been vindicated.

Starting December of last year, Tunisia became the first Arab country to rebel against and then overthrow its autocratic leadership, without any significant outside intervention.

In the process, Tunisia’s masses set in motion the Arab Spring. Grassroots uprisings that took the world by surprise swept through Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

On Sunday, Tunisia became the very first of the Arab Spring nations to hold a free, democratic election. Yet, while voting was remarkably well organized and turnout was exceedingly high, the victory of the Islamist Ennahda, or “Renaissance” party, which garnered a plurality of about 40 percent, according to preliminary vote tallies, is a worrying sign.

If Islamists have succeeded in Tunisia, a country widely considered to be the mostsecularized and democracy-inclined Arab country, the prospects for Egypt and Libya, both preparing for their own elections, are far from promising.

Admittedly, in comparison to other Islamists parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which stands a good chance of coming to power in Egypt’s upcoming elections, or Hamas, which in 2006 took advantage of a hastily implemented democratic election among Palestinians to rise to power, Ennahda, can, and has, been referred to as “soft Islamist” in its approach.

Rachid Ghannouchi, Ennahda’s head, said in an interview with Al Jazeera after returning to Tunisia from exile that Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party was closest to Ennahda’s in its outlook. Though he was attempting to point to Ennahda’s relatively moderate political approach, Ghannushi’s analogy was hardly comforting.

Turkey regularly represses the press and intimidates secular military and business figures at home, while forming an anti-Western axis in the region with the likes of Iran and Egypt’s up-and-coming Islamists.




Ghannouchi is also rabidly anti-Israel. Following the end of the Gaza War in January 2009, for instance, Ghannouchi praised Allah who “routed the Zionist Jews,” and labeled the Israeli withdrawal/disengagement from Gaza in 2005 as “the first step in the complete victory of all of Palestine and the holy places of the Muslims.”

Living under former president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s autocratic regime was undoubtedly unpleasant for most Tunisians. The man was regularly reelected, sometimes getting more than 90 percent of the vote – a sure sign that human beings’ natural propensity for dissent had been either bypassed by ballot fraud or repressed by intimidation. Security forces regularly patrolled Internet cafes and other supposed hotbeds of sedition. The reason cited for the state’s intrusive policing was the need to counter Islamic extremists.

However, it was abundantly clear that once suppression of dissent was condoned for one group it became unruly and imperfect and metastasized, though it never reached the maniacal extremes witnessed in, say, neighboring Libya.

Ben Ali’s regime was not all bad, however. When the ancient synagogue on Djerba Island was truck-bombed by al-Qaida in April 2002, for instance, the government rushed to express solidarity and to rebuild.

It has been two decades since Huntington accurately assessed Tunisia’s potential for developing a democratic regime. His prediction has come true. It would be a tragedy and a sober lesson about the dangers of democracy if the very democratic process envisioned for Tunisia by Huntington ended up bringing to power an Islamist political party that will use its democratic mandate to roll back the positive reforms implemented under Ben Ali’s autocratic regime.

Libya, where to?

Muammar Gaddafi, a wicked, violent and capricious dictator who is responsible for the deaths of countless victims at home and abroad, is no more. Libya is now at a crossroads comparable with 1952, when the country was first declared an independent state, or 1969 when Gaddafi wrested control from King Idris, Libya’s first unifying figure.

Unfortunately, Libya carries the legacy of centuryold fractures – social, economic, geographic and cultural – unhealed since Italy, in November 1911, first brought together by royal decree the disparate regions of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan under theartificial construction known, since 1934, as “Libya,” the Greek term for Northwest Africa.

Bridging these fractures presents the biggest challenge to Libya’s future stability; failing to do so could result in years of violence and anarchy.

Further exacerbating Libya’s inherent volatility is a myriad of ad-hoc militias, police forces, neighborhood guards and miscellaneous riff raff – not to mention between 120 to 130 tribes all armed to the teeth with questionable loyalties and roaming the country.

Under the circumstances, it would be highly advisable for Libyans to proceed cautiously with their new-found “freedom,” says Prof. Maurice Roumani, of Ben-Gurion University’s Department of Mult-Discipline Studies and author, most recently, of The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement.

That’s why it was unsettling to hear Mustafa Abdel Jalil, chairman of the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC), Libya’s de facto government, announce plans to speed headlong into parliamentary and presidential elections in just eight months.

His call to draft a 37-point constitution that would ensure such pillars of enlightened society, such as basic human rights – regardless of race, religion or tribal loyalty – is admirable, but unrealistic in the short term.

Roumani, for one, believes that until the formidable task of disarming and disbanding the multitude of militias is completed and military power is consolidated and put under control, Libya will face insurmountable obstacles in its transition to some form of parliamentary democracy.




And there is, of course, the real danger of a resurgence of Islamists, who were handily repressed, jailed, exiled or hunted down under Gaddafi’s regime.

For 42 years, by the sheer force of his will and an ampleand ready dose of brutality, Gaddafi had managed to hold together the pastiche of tribes, cultures, geographies and ethnicities that make up modernday Libya.

In the process, Gaddafi effectively undermined all independent institutions – from the legal system and police force, to the press and the universities. It will take years to rebuild the foundations of a civil society. Until then, uncertainty – perhaps utter chaos – will rein.

The fact that Libya supplies about two percent of the world’s oil and that this oil is highly accessible, and of very high quality, further ups the ante by attracting all sorts of potentially violent types interested more in self-aggrandizement and wealth than the good of the people.

The vigilante execution of Gaddafi is hardly auspicious. The anarchy and breakdown of command that enabled members of Libya’s revolutionary militias to murder Gaddafi after he was discovered could very well be a harbinger of the sort of disorder that awaits Libyans.

Though we sympathize with the masses who suffered at the hands of Gaddafi’s evil regime to seek swift retribution, how much more promising to a new Libya would the arraignment of the rogue in The Hague’s International Criminal Court have been?

Libya must proceed cautiously, putting in place the sorts of institutions that are a prerequisite for even the most rudimentary forms of democracy.

But, the first order of business – which could be achieved with the aid of NATO forces – is to disarm the myriad gun-toting militias and restore law and order. Only then will the Libyan people be ready to contemplate transition to some form of democratic rule.

An age-old dilemma

During centuries of exile and wandering, the Jewish people has, sadly, accumulated immense experience with extortion and abductions. Wherever they went, Jews tended to excel but, unfortunately, often lacked the means to defend the fruits of their labor. Too often they became easy prey for kidnappers.

Jews’ strong emphasis on the value of life, their belief that they share a common fate and their strong feeling of mutual responsibility led them to go to extreme measures to free hostages. And this was ruthlessly exploited by their enemies.

Throughout the ages, Jewish communities have been forced to face the inherent dilemmas that characterize any prisoner release. A rich rabbinic literature developed to grapple with the moral and legal aspects of what was referred to as “redeeming hostages” [pidyon shvuim].

The founders of the State of Israel hoped to change the course of Jewish history and eradicate the endemic vulnerability of the Jewish condition in the Diaspora. And they largely succeeded.

However, with all their accomplishments and impressive military might, the Jewish people in Israel have been unable to shake off some old challenges.

Israelis, like their ancestors, continue to value life immensely and believe strongly in the concept of mutual responsibility [areyvut]. And since IDF service is mandatory, lines are blurred between soldier and citizen. Israel’s many enemies do everything in their power to take advantage of these “weaknesses.” (Other cultures, such as in the US, lack this Achilles’ heel, because they see POWs as a necessary price to pay for fighting wars.)

Many of the moral deliberations surrounding the prisoner exchange deal to release Sgt. Gilad Schalit have been agonized over by Jewish sages for ages. And there are no easy answers. The Mishna, written in the first centuries of the first millennium when many Jews lived under the Roman Empire, already prohibits redeeming captives “for more than their monetary value” to foster “society’s welfare” [tikkun olam]. Payment of exorbitant ransoms, explains the Talmud, might bankrupt the community. Also, it notes, the knowledge that Jews are willing to pay dearly to release hostages might encourage future kidnappings.

Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293), who was kidnapped in Germany, famously issued a ruling from jail prohibiting his followers to pay his ransom. He died in captivity. Indeed, this no-dealing-with-extortionists approach is eminently logical. Hamas has already indicated that Schalit “will not be the last soldier kidnapped.”

The release of 1,150 Palestinian terrorists, including Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin – in the May 1985 Ahmed Jibril deal – helped spark the First Intifada. Of 238 terrorists freed in the Jibril deal who reached Judea and Samaria, 48 percent returned to terrorism and were recaptured by the IDF, according to the Almagor Terror Victims Association. And since 2000, it says, some 180 Israelis have been killed in attacks planned by Palestinian terrorists released in prisoner exchange deals.

Then again, Maimonides (1135-1204) states: “There is no commandment as great as the redemption of captives.”

And Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), in his Shulhan Arukh, notes: “Each instant that one fails to redeem captives when it is possible to do so, it is as though one has shed blood.”

Some contemporary rabbis have extrapolated from these rulings to support prison swaps.

For instance, Shas mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has argued that in cases such as Schalit’s, the clear and present danger to the life of the hostage outweighs the potential danger to Israelis who might become the future targets of the freed terrorists.

Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli (1910-1995), a leading national religious Halachic authority, ruled that an unwritten agreement exists between the State of Israel and the soldier that no efforts will be spared to secure a release in the case of kidnapping.

This obviously serves to bolster the soldier’s morale and is a reassuring message for the soldier’s family and loved ones.

Sadly, the Jewish people’s trials and tribulations have not ended with the creation of the State of Israel. And while our rich tradition offers no definitive decision on the Schalit deal, it does provide unique insight into the many facets of an age-old dilemma with no easy answers.

The Israeli left: A political obituary

Here's my article on the demise of the Left that appears in this month's Commentary.

Misguided strike

With much fanfare and media coverage, Histadrut labor federation chairman Ofer Eini declared during a press conference Tuesday that all unionized workers would launch a general strike after Succot.

Ostensibly, the strike – which would paralyze the economy at a time when leading economists are warning of an international recession that is likely to have an adverse impact on Israel’s economy – is designed to put pressure on the government to improve the working conditions of public sector workers employed via outsourcing arrangements.

These workers, who number in the hundreds of thousands, often lack basic social benefits and cannot acquire seniority (they are often fired and rehired yearly). And the low salaries they receive do not result in lower state expenditures, since middlemen pocket hefty commissions.

However, in addition to championing the cause of these workers, a cause arguably under the purview of the Histadrut as a labor union, Eini has also apparently joined forces with leaders of this summer’s socioeconomic protests and dragged unionized workers into a decidedly political battle against the Trajtenberg Committee recommendations, which were ratified by the cabinet this week.

The Histadrut and the tent-city protesters make strange bedfellows: Much of the high cost of living criticized by the protesters is a direct result of the high salaries paid to public sector workers at state-run monopolies such as the Israel Electric Corporation, the Haifa, Ashdod and Eilat ports and the Israel Airports Authority that are represented by Eini. According to an annual public sector wage report released by the Treasury Monday, the average monthly salary in the Israel Electric Corporation in 2010 was NIS 21,354, at Haifa Port it was NIS 24,805, at Ashdod Port it was 24,557, at Israel Railways it was NIS 37,639 and in government offices it was NIS 13,630, compared to a national average of NIS 8,900.

And Eini is considered a close associate of senior business leaders thoroughly vilified by the protest movement.

Even if we ignore Eini’s flagrant abuse of union power for the sake of influencing the government’s macroeconomic policy, the Histadrut chairman’s stated objective of reducing the number of workers employed via contractors sound disingenuous.

Precisely the sorts of restrictive collective work agreements successfully negotiated by the Histadrut in the past are one of the root causes for the growth in the use of outsourced workers. Labor and management flexibility in the public sector is low, which means that after an employee is hired it is extremely difficult to make him or her redundant.

Also, public sector workers receive salary raises based solely on seniority, regardless of the quality of their work.

In fact, there are no criteria in place for evaluating public sector workers’ productivity or work ethic. Transferring workers from one public sector position where they are no longed needed to another where they are is difficult, as is the introduction of new technologies that require workers to undergo additional training.

Under the circumstances, it should come as no surprise that the public sector employs an inordinately high number of outsourced workers to compensate for the inherent lack of flexibility in the public sector. If it weren’t so inefficient and expensive to employ public sector workers directly, there would be no need for so many outsourced workers.


In its recommendations, the Trajtenberg Committee called on the government “to work toward a new work arrangement in the public sector that introduces more flexibility and enables the recruitment of higher quality manpower. Recognition of excellence on the basis of systematic evaluations coupled with an effective process of layoffs would help achieve this goal.”

However, Eini and the public sector workers he represents reject Trajtenberg’s eminently wise advice. Understandably, they do not want to give up their favorable working conditions and high salaries.

But if Eini were truly sincere about eradicating the phenomenon of outsourced workers, or at least reducing their numbers, he would be pushing for reforms within the public sector that would make it easier to transform many outsourced workers into full-fledged employees, instead of calling for a general strike.

Egypt's shaky rule

A day after Cairo’s streets were marred with bloodshed that left 24 dead and hundreds wounded, Egypt’s future appeared even more uncertain.

Like the September 9 storming of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo by enraged Egyptian masses, Sunday’s violence, sparked by Christian Copts’ outrage at the desecration of one of their churches, was yet another reminder of the potential dangers in store for Egypt as it gropes haltingly for a more enlightened and democratic leadership.

In the initial stages of mayhem and killing – the worst spasm of violence since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in February – it seemed that demonstrations staged by the Copts, who make up about 10 percent of the population (but who are apparently leaving Egypt in large numbers since March) transformed into a more general protest against the ruling military junta – Egypt’s Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (SCAF).


Protesters chanted, “The people want to bring down the field marshal,” adapting the signature chant of the Tahrir Square protests, to call for the resignation of the military’s top officer, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.

At one point, however, it appeared that military and riot police had joined forces with Muslim demonstrators chanting “The people want to bring down the Christians.”

Several protesters were crushed to death when military vehicles rammed into the crowds.

Divisions among the various sectors of Egyptian society are so numerous and deep that it is difficult to imagine any of the existing options for political leadership fostering stability when parliamentary elections are launched on November 28.

The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, who stand to garner around 30% to 40% of the vote, are remarkably united – while leftists, radical nationalists and moderates are divided. With Islamists likely to emerge with the single largest vote, this could result in a head-on clash with Copts and various secularist groups who had hoped for the protections of a pluralistic, democratic state, and would be alienated by intolerant Islamist rule.

Leaders of the military junta, meanwhile, would fight the Islamists to maintain their hegemony.

Still, whether or not democratic elections are good for Egypt, it seems they are unavoidable. Under immense pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood and other political parties who threatened to boycott elections if SCAF went ahead with plans to delay them or postpone other reforms, the SCAF hastily reached a compromise which will apparently facilitate parliamentary elections as planned on November 28.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the agreement is SCAF’s demand to postpone presidential elections.

Instead of holding them in April 2012, they will be held in April 2013. In the interim, the military junta will hold onto executive powers, while the newly elected upper and lower houses of the Egyptian parliament work to hammer out a constitution.

If reports are true and all goes as planned, the delay of presidential elections could potentially be a positive development. Keeping the military junta in power, at least in an executive function, could help avoid a major confrontation between Egypt and the West – in particular America and Israel – even if the parliament is taken over by Islamist and radical nationalist parties.

But pressure is building among diverse groups to reinstate the April 2012 date for presidential elections so as to enable a quick transition to civil rule.

If SCAF is forced to relinquish rule next year, this could increase the chances that the sort of anarchy and internal strife witnessed on the streets of Cairo Sunday night will spread. And this could have a negative impact on, among other things, Egypt’s long-lasting peace treaty with Israel.

Having just commemorated the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Anwar Sadat on October 6, we should be wary of the potential for sudden, and violent, change on our border to the south.

Ideally, the transition to civilian rule is an admirable goal. But in Egypt’s present political reality, it could lead to further bloodshed and strife.

Debating civil marriage

A group of organizations petitioned the High Court last week demanding that it order the state to pass legislation that permits civil marriages.

They rightly argued that the status quo is discriminatory.

Hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens, including about 300,000 immigrants who came from the former Soviet Union and their offspring, and some foreign workers who are gradually undergoing a naturalization process, are living in an untenable state of civil ambiguity.

These people are seen as full-fledged Israeli citizens.

They are expected to serve in the IDF, to fight and if necessary to die to defend the Jewish state.


They pay taxes and perform other civic functions expected of citizens. But because they are not considered Jewish according to Halacha and because they are not affiliated with any other religion, these Israeli citizens are denied a basic right – the right to marry whomever they please.

Instead, these couples – one member of whom is Jewish and one is not – must travel abroad to tie the knot. Upon returning to Israel, their marriage is recognized by the state.

A partial solution to this situation was provided last November when the Knesset passed legislation that enables civil unions in cases where both the man and woman are not Jewish and have no other religious affiliation. But this legislation does not help in cases of intermarriage between a Jew and a non-Jew.

Still, while the Reform Movement’s Religious Action Center, the Masorti Movement, New Family, Na’amat, WIZO, Kolech, Hiddush and other organization that petitioned the High Court are right that the present marriage laws violate democratic principles of equality, there is, nevertheless, a reason why the civil marriage option has been denied Israelis for the first 63 years of the Jewish state’s existence.

Though according to recent surveys of Jewish Israeli opinion, this is no longer the case, there was once a strong consensus that Israel, as the sovereign nation of the Jewish people, has an obligation to fight intermarriage through legislation that encourages Jews to marry other Jews. Intermarriage and assimilation plague Jews of the Diaspora. The State of Israel should reflect through its laws the desire of the Jewish people to maintain continuity. Admittedly, preventing Jews from marrying non-Jews through legislation or a lack thereof will not stop intermarriage. Love will overcome any obstacle. But the fact that the State of Israel does not officially condone intermarriage has some declarative value.

It appears, however, that we are swiftly approaching a crossroads. A growing number of Israelis believe that more separation needs to be made between Synagogue and State. In part, this is due to the alienating effect for many Israelis of the haredi-controlled Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly over religious services – including marriage and divorce.

The demand for civil marriages would undoubtedly be less insistent today if religious services had been “privatized” years ago to allow various streams of Orthodoxy – modern and ultra-Orthodox – and recognized non-Orthodox streams of Judaism that accept central Jewish concepts – such as matrilineal descent – to compete in an atmosphere of “free market Judaism.”

The Reform and Masorti movements in Israel would probably never have joined in petitioning the High Court to institute civil marriages if they had been allowed to perform their own marriages.

If civil marriage is instituted in Israel, however, it must not be done via High Court edict, but rather only after an extensive public discourse, perhaps even a referendum, is conducted and our lawmakers are given ample time to discuss the matter. Individual liberty must be carefully weighed against the importance of maintaining the Jewishness of the State of Israel.

No matter what the final outcome, it is essential that all Israelis, whether for or against civil marriage, be satisfied that the decision-making process was thorough and fair and took into consideration the many dimensions of an issue that continues to arouse strong emotions on all sides of the debate.

Judaism's call for peace

Ideally, religion should and can be a force for peace. But this Yom Kippur – the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, a day devoted entirely to self-improvement and the striving for tikkun olam – was marred by sectarian violence.

More than 100 graves were vandalized in the Muslim cemetery of al-Kazakhana and at a nearby Christian cemetery in the Ajami neighborhood of Jaffa. Some of the graves were spray-painted with graffiti such as “Death to all Arabs,” while others were smashed. Jaffa residents said the vandalism took place Friday evening as the Yom Kippur holiday was beginning, though police suggested it might have taken place a day or two prior. In the ensuing protests staged by the Muslim and Christian residents of Jaffa, who were joined by dozens of sympathetic Jews, a Molotov cocktail was hurled at the roof of the Rabbi Meir Ba’al Ha’nes synagogue in Jaffa, causing damage but, thankfully, no injuries. On Wednesday, Jewish worshipers were shocked to discover that a holy site in Nablus believed to be the burial site of the biblical Joseph had been desecrated by swastikas and graffiti.



THIS LATEST flurry of violence focusing specifically on holy sites was sparked by last week’s despicable arson attack on a mosque in Tuba Zanghariya.

The desecration in Tuba Zanghariya was compounded by the fact that the Beduin village has a long history of cooperation and peaceful coexistence with Israel. In 1946, men from the al-Heib tribe in Tuba fought side by side with the Palmah to help secure Israeli independence. The village named its sports hall after Yitzhak Rabin. In October 2000, when Arab riots broke out in the Galilee, village leaders decided that Tuba Zanghariya’s residents would not take part. Today, there is a branch of the Acharay [After Me] Movement in the town, where one of the locals, a veteran of the Givati Infantry Brigade, works to increase the Beduin youths’ motivation to serve in combat units.

Religious extremism, often characterized by an unnerving, unshakable and irrational belief in the justness of the cause, coupled with a willingness to take action to do God’s will, distorts the perception of the devout. The recent spate of attacks on religious sites – Muslim, Jewish and Christian – is a case in point. All threaten to upset the delicate web of coexistence in such a potentially volatile region.

Admirably, numerous religious leaders have spoken out strongly against the violence, arguing rightly that it is a gross misrepresentation of the principles of religious faith.

Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger personally visited Tuba Zanghariya to denounce the attack as did neighboring Rosh Pina’s Rabbi Avraham Davidowitz, who is also head of the local pre-military yeshiva. Even Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu of Safed, who aroused controversy for calling on Jews not to rent or sell apartments to non-Jews, nevertheless denounced the act, though he questioned whether Jews had carried it out. In an editorial, the haredi daily Yated Ne’eman condemned the arsonists, though unfortunately the editorial board was carried away with religious fervor, arguing that Halacha dictated the arsonists could be killed to prevent them from endangering others.

The local Reform and Masorti (Conservative) movements issued statements. And in an initiative organized by the New Israel Fund, more than a thousand rabbis from around the world representing all streams of Judaism signed a declaration denouncing the burning of the mosque in Tuba Zanghariya.

The across-the-board denunciation by Jewish religious leaders from all streams of the violent attack on a Muslim site is ample evidence that Judaism, while sometimes distorted and misrepresented, does indeed carry a strong message of peace.

Protecting Trajtenberg from populism

It’s only natural that politicians will gauge their parliamentary activities in accordance with the way they understand the electoral winds to be blowing.

But, sometimes kowtowing to perceived public opinion is so crude that it crosses the line that separates political savvy from cheap, irresponsible populism.

A case in point was the fiasco that took place in the cabinet Monday over the vote on the Trajtenberg Committee recommendations.

This paper, along with many leading economists, including Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, has come out strongly in favor of the Trajtenberg recommendations.

Real solutions are provided for a host of ills afflicting our economy – from income-tax reforms benefiting the cash-strapped middle-class; to longer school days and state funding of pre-schools that will enable mothers to leave the house and work; to higher corporate taxes and National Insurance payments provided by employers; to wide-ranging reforms in the construction and housing market; to a lowering of tariffs and more stringent anti-trust laws that will facilitate more competitive markets leading to lower consumer prices.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, riding the groundswell of grassroots support for socioeconomic change, was rightly eager to hold a vote in favor of the Trajtenberg recommendations in the cabinet as quickly as possible.

Final passage of the recommendations in the Knesset is a long and grueling process. Initially, a first reading is voted on in the plenum. Next, the relevant Knesset committees take apart the recommendations and discuss them individually. Finally, the Knesset votes again in a second and third reading.

The quicker the Trajtenberg recommendations can be passed in the cabinet, the better. Unfortunately, narrow political interests and pointless wrangling forced Netanyahu to delay the cabinet vote, further pushing off much-needed economic reforms.

Apparently concerned by Aryeh Deri’s imminent return to politics, Shas leader Eli Yishai attempted to turn the cabinet vote into an opportunity to present his party as the champion of the poor.

“Our opposition is a matter of principle,” announced Yishai. “The weakest sectors have been left behind.... We will continue to oppose this report until its flaws are fixed.”

By rejecting the Trajtenberg recommendations, Yishai no doubt sensed he would be appealing to the tens of thousands of disgruntled Israelis who are understandably fed up with such socioeconomic ills as the widening gap between the rich and the poor – one of the biggest in the Western world – and the exorbitant cost of basics, such as housing and food.



But delaying the passage of the Trajtenberg recommendations only exacerbates the situation. And with all due respect to Shas and its claim to be the defender of the poor, this summer's socioeconomic protests were first and foremost a revolt of the middle class against their inability, despite working and hard and earning relative well, to make ends meet.
In addition to Shas's Yishai, several Likud rebels also jumped on the populist bandwagon such as Netanyahu's perennial rival Vice Premier and Regional Development Minister Silvan Shalom and Welfare and Social Services Minister Moshe Kahlon. Meanwhile, Israel Beiteinu's ministers seemed motivated, at least in part, by a desire to show Netanyahu, and Israel Beiteinu's constituents that they were not as Tourism Minister Stas Meseznikov put it "pawns" in the hands of Netanyahu. And Defense Minister Ehud Barak is battling against the cuts proposed by the Trajtenberg Committee in the security budget.
None of the ministers offered criticism with real substance that justified a delay in passing the Trajtenberg recommendations. Like the leaders of this summer's socioeconomic protests such as Dafni Leef, who is credited with beginning the tent camp protests, and National Student Association Chairman Itizk Shmuli, the ministers who voiced their unschooled opposition to Trajtenberg seemed to be less concerned with articulating realistic economic reforms and more interested in tapping into the populist energies of an Israeli society yearning for a fairer more efficient socioeconomic climate.
Sadly, the successful passage of the Trajtenberg recommendations, which would go a long way towards righting many of the wrongs in our economy, can no longer be taken for granted if the sort of petty bickering that went on in the cabinet Monday is indicative of future discussions in the cabinet and in the Knesset. In their zeal to appeal to what they believe to be popular opinion our lawmakers are performing a real disservice to the self same public they claim to represent.

Sidestepping Gilo

Washington’s response to plans to advance the building of 1,100 housing units in the Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo was relatively subdued. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the Gilo project “counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties.”

Statements coming from Berlin were worded more sternly.

Following a phone call between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Chancellor Angela Merkel about the Gilo project, the German Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Merkel told Netanyahu that she “lacked any comprehension for the approval of new construction plans for Gilo near Jerusalem just days after the Quartet declaration [calling for a new peace plan] had been passed.”

No matter the precise wording of the responses, it is abundantly clear that America, Israel’s most important international ally, and Germany, a country that came out early and strongly against Palestinian efforts to receive UN recognition for a Palestinian state along the 1949 armistice lines – which include Gilo on the Palestinian side – were both upset by the timing of the Gilo project announcement.

It is equally clear that unlike the surprise surrounding the March 2010 Ramat Shlomo debacle that coincided with Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel to jump-start direct talks, Netanyahu and the Americans were both forewarned that Interior Ministry’s District Planning Committee would be approving the Gilo project. And Netanyahu was also aware that it would arouse international rancor.

In a Rosh Hashana-eve interview with The Jerusalem Post’s Herb Keinon, the prime minister was specifically asked about the claim that it was bad timing to announce Gilo now. Netanyahu rejected this.

“We build in Jewish neighborhoods, the Arabs build in Arab neighborhoods,” he replied. “That is the way the life of this city goes on and develops for its Jewish and non- Jewish residents alike.”

Still, perhaps Netanyahu should have played his hand differently.

Of course Israel has every right to build in Gilo. But perhaps he should have quietly postponed approval of the Gilo project.

After the Ramat Shlomo crisis, Netanyahu put in place oversight procedures allowing him to do precisely this. If he had postponed Gilo, claiming technical difficulties or some other non-political explanation, the Palestinians would have had no excuse for avoiding direct talks as recommended by the Quartet.

Delaying Gilo would have also made it easier for the US and Germany and other European countries to back Israel’s demand to resume talks without any preconditions and would have sent out a message that we are appreciative for their support in the UN against the Palestinian bid for statehood.

And even if Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who has authority over construction planning, had publicly objected, claiming that Netanyahu was bowing to international pressure, this would have been good for Netanyahu diplomatically.

He would have come out looking like a prime minister pursuing peace despite opposition from inside his own government coalition.

True, there is no good time to build in Gilo.

International opinion is opposed to any Jewish construction beyond the Green Line. No distinctions are made between outlying settlements in Judea and Samaria and Gilo, a neighborhood 10 minutes away from downtown Jerusalem that will remain part of Israel in a final-status agreement according to every peace plan put forward in the past 18 years, including the 2000 Clinton parameters and the Geneva Initiative.



Even the Palestinians have privately accepted the idea that Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem will remain part of Israel, according to about 1,600 documents revealing the content of negotiations that went on in 2008 between high-ranking Israeli and Palestinian Authority officials leaked to Al Jazeera in January, known as “PaliLeaks.”

Meanwhile, Israel faces a major housing shortage. Even a short delay in construction further widens the gap between inadequate supply and skyrocketing demand.

Nevertheless, from a tactical perspective, it would have been wiser to temporarily delay the Gilo project.

Doing so would have shifted international pressure and attention from Jerusalem to Ramallah and demonstrated that Palestinian intransigence – not the apartment buildings in Gilo – is the real obstacle to peace.

Consumer power

The Great Israeli Cottage Cheese Uprising has taken a new and promising turn. Itzik Elrov, the haredi man from Bnei Brak who started it all back in June, could not have imagined that his lone Facebook call, spurred by shock at the jacked-up price of cottage cheese at his local grocery store, would set in motion a revolution in the local dairy market.

The latest chapter in a saga demonstrating the tremendous power that can be wielded by engaged and united consumers is the resignation of Zehavit Cohen, head of the dairy giant Tnuva. The resignation, pending an investigation by the Israel Antitrust Authority into allegations that Tnuva might have hidden documents revealing that it abused its monopoly status to gouge prices, was accompanied by an announcement by Tnuva, which controls well over half of the NIS 8.6 billion dairy market, on a 15 percent price cut starting Tuesday. White cheeses, hard yellow cheeses and pudding are some of the products that will become more affordable.

But while it is encouraging to know that the grassroots protest started by Elrov and picked up by several university student unions in recent months succeeded in getting the attention of big businesses, the impact made by Elrov et alia might be even more farreaching, resulting in no less than a complete revamping of the entire dairy market.

It has been an open secret for some time that the prices of dairy products here are disproportionately high. But it took the Great Israeli Cottage Cheese Uprising to push this fact to the forefront of public consciousness.

For instance, in July, just weeks after the uprising began, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made headlines when he expressed astonishment during a visit to Romania that Tnuva cottage cheese sold for NIS 2 less in Bucharest than it did in Beersheba.

Reports released by the Treasury and by the Knesset research department over the summer provided data on the 45% hike in cottage cheese prices between 2006, when price controls were removed, and January 2011, when a 250-gram container cost more than NIS 7. In June, Elrov’s grocery store charged NIS 8. In contrast, the wholesale price of milk increased by less than 10% during the same period.

These reports, and a thorough study published in July by Keren Harel-Harari of the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, listed the reasons for the price distortions in our dairy market. Tnuva, Tara and Strauss – the three largest dairies – as well as other producers of agricultural products – were said to be exempt from the sorts of anti-trust laws that applied to most sectors of the economy. Also, various tariffs and obstacles to imports – such as a 150% to 200% tax on imported milk powder and butter – protected the local dairy and agricultural market from international competition.

But perhaps most disturbing was the revelation that in March this year, the Netanyahu government – usually so strongly pro-free market – pushed through the Law for the Planning of the Dairy Market. In the 50-0 vote, the Knesset ratified legislation reminiscent of now-defunct centrally planned economies. Instead of allowing free market forces to sort out supply and demand in the market, a special “quota committee” would determine annual dairy output.



Though the law gives the industry, trade and labor minister the authority to open up the dairy market to international competition, Shalom Simhon, the present minister who is seen as representing the interests of moshavim, many of which are big producers of milk, has said publicly that doing so would be ineffective and would take too long.

It appears, however, that the forces set in motion by Elrov’s Great Israeli Cottage Cheese Uprising are unstoppable. The same grassroots pressure that brought about Cohen’s resignation and Tnuva’s hasty announcement of a price cut will inevitably lead to more substantial and desperately needed changes in the dairy market. And it all began with one disgruntled consumer who refused to be taken advantage of any longer.