Hezbollah = terrorism

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/11/2012 22:13

Its about time Europe takes seriously the threat that Hezbollah represents.

Could it be that the European Union is finally on its way to recognizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? That appeared to be the message coming from an Austrian diplomat who spoke with The Jerusalem Post’s European correspondent Benjamin Weinthal over the weekend.

Amazingly, the Europeans have yet to do so. All we can say is, “Better late than never.”

Already in 1995, well before 9/11 attacks revealed the murderous potential of radical Islamist groups, the US classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. That decision followed shortly after the July 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that left 85 dead and more than 300 wounded. Hezbollah is suspected of working in coordination with Iran to carry out that attack.

This past July, Hezbollah marked the 18th anniversary of the AMIA massacre by carrying out a suicide bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria. The explosion killed five Israelis as well as their Bulgarian bus driver and wounded 32 Israelis.

In the time between the AMIA and Burgas attacks, Hezbollah has been involved in numerous acts of terrorism both at home in Lebanon – the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri comes to mind – and abroad.

In August of this year, the US sanctioned Hezbollah for supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. David Cohen, the United States Department of Treasury’s under secretary for Terrorism and financial intelligence, told Al- Arabiya television that the latest action was “designed principally to expose the activity of Hezbollah in providing operational, logistical, and other sorts of support to the Syrian government in its repression of the Syrian people.”

A more thorough account of Hezbollah’s terrorist activities since its foundation in 1982 can be found in a 42-page paper titled “Timeline of Terror: A Concise History of Hezbollah Atrocities” produced by the British Henry Jackson Society, one of several pro-democracy think tanks and organizations lobbying the EU to ban Hezbollah.

Yet besides the Netherlands, which recognized Hezbollah as a terrorist organization a few years ago, and Britain, which since 2001 makes a distinction between Hezbollah’s political wing – which the UK does not consider a terrorist organization – and its military wing – which the UK does consider terrorist – no other European country has followed the US’s – and Canada’s – lead.

As a result, Hezbollah is free to operate in Europe raising money, recruiting supporters and plotting terrorist attacks.

Of all places, it is Germany that has become a center for Hezbollah’s rabidly anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist activities, with 950 members and supporters last year, up from 900 in 2010, according to an annual report put out by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency.

In August 2009, for instance, Alexander Ritzmann, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy, found that a German charity for Lebanese orphans was really a front organization raising money for Hezbollah suicide bombers. Dozens of other similar “charities” continue to operate freely on European soil.

And in many cases donations to these charities are tax deductible, which means Germany and other European states are subsidizing a terrorist organization.

Ritzmann and others also suspect that the Hezbollah maintains trained military operatives throughout Europe who act as “sleeper cells” that can become active when called upon.

A European blacklist would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on Hezbollah. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, admitted that such a ban “would dry up the sources of finance” and “end moral, political and material support” for the terrorist organization.

In contrast, refraining from issuing such a ban would allow the Hezbollah to continue to operate freely on European soil. Just last month, White House counter-terrorism chief John O. Brennan said that European failure to join the US in designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization is undermining international counter-terrorism efforts. “Let me be clear,” Brennan said in a speech in Dublin, European resistance “makes it harder to defend our countries and protect our citizens.”

Its about time Europe takes seriously the threat that Hezbollah represents.

Obama and Israel

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/08/2012 22:46

There might still be a strained relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, but this should not get in the way of relations between the countries.

The 2012 US presidential elections were particularly combative. One of the most divisive issues was President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies. Obama was assailed for purportedly being too weak on Iran; he was criticized for pushing Israel too hard vis-à-vis the Palestinians; he was taken to task for failing to confront the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and radical Islam elsewhere.

His Republican opponents highlighted Obama’s tense relationship with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Obama was accused of snubbing Netanyahu during visits to the White House; in a “hot mic” moment, he seemed to concur with then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy about his distaste for Netanyahu; in September, Obama failed to find the time to meet with Netanyahu during the prime minister’s trip to the US to address the UN General Assembly.

Relations between the two men were seen in Israel to be so bad that in the aftermath of Obama’s victory some even expect the US president – no longer concerned about getting reelected – to take revenge.

Just a day after the US election, Army Radio quoted sources in the Likud claiming that Obama could work against Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli elections as payback for Netanyahu’s apparent preference for Mitt Romney in the US presidential race.

The tensions between the countries and their leaders were reflected in surveys of Israeli attitudes. A Smith Research poll sponsored by The Jerusalem Post in mid- October, for example, found that 28 percent of Jewish Israelis believed that the Obama administration was more pro-Palestinian, 18% found it to be more pro-Israel and 40% called it neutral, with 14% declining to participate.

Still, while Obama and Romney might have voiced very different approaches on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, four more years of Obama’s leadership will, we hope, not be a source of concern for those who care about Israel.

Regarding Iran, Obama might ultimately be more disposed than Romney to use military means if necessary.

Romney, who would likely be perceived by the American Left as continuing George W. Bush’s “regime change” policies in the Middle East, might face a massive anti-war campaign if he launched a military attack on Iran.

In contrast, Obama could be more successful at building a broad consensus – both at home and abroad – for using force to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Unlike Romney, who would take precious time putting together his own foreign policy team as Iran continues its stubborn march toward nuclear weapon capability, Obama has already articulated his stance on Iran – including going on record numerous times as saying that it is an American interest to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapon capability. And he has made a point of not ruling out military action.

With regard to Palestinians and settlements, Obama seems to have learned from his mistake of forcing a construction freeze on Israel. Though his intention might have been to set in motion negotiations leading to a viable two-state solution, the move only succeeded in hardening a hopelessly intransigent Palestinian leadership.

As former US president Bill Clinton discovered in his second term and as Obama has undoubtedly already realized, so long as the Palestinians refuse to reconcile themselves to Jewish nationhood, it will be impossible to achieve long-lasting peace.

With Syria engulfed in a bloody civil war, Egypt entering an era of radical Islamization and Iran threatening to attain nuclear weapons, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not hold the same urgency as it once did, particularly since the relatively peaceful status quo that exists between Israel and the Palestinian Authority seems sustainable – at least in the short-term.

On numerous occasions, Obama has presented himself as a friend of Israel. Whether from the podium of the UN General Assembly, via the strengthening of military cooperation between the US and Israel or in his unequivocal stand on Iran, Obama has defended cardinal Israeli interests that dovetail with American interests.

There might still be a strained relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, but this should not get in the way of the strong relations between the countries. It is our fervent hope that the next four years will see these ties boosted even further, together with a reduction in the tension between our respective leaders.

A winner either way

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/06/2012 21:15

Regardless of who wins the 2012 US presidential election, the ties between America and the Jewish state will remain strong.

Perhaps more than any previous election in the United States, the 2012 presidential race has seen attempts to turn Israel into a partisan issue.

Democrats have accused Republicans of being “bad for Israel” because they would refrain from pushing for a two-state solution with the Palestinians. The resulting diplomatic stalemate would perpetuate the status quo, endangering both the Jewish majority and Israel’s democracy in the process, they say.

Republicans, meanwhile, have attacked Democrats for not supporting Israel’s interests in Jerusalem, on Iran and in negotiations with the Palestinians. Democrats have countered that repeated attacks on President Barack Obama’s policies vis-à-vis Israel threaten to turn the Jewish state into a wedge issue.



The Shalom Hartman Institute’s Yossi Klein Halevi and The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg have voiced concerns that if Mitt Romney is elected, there is a real chance that the anti-war movement would be re-energized. Romney, if he were to decide to use military power to stop Iran’s march toward a nuclear bomb, would be accused of continuing the policies of George Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This could, in Halevi’s words “dangerously erode the already-shaky nature of bipartisan support for Israel.”

According to Goldberg, if this happens, American liberals will be tempted to put supporters of Israel “in the same category they reserve for climate-change-denying, anti-choice Obamacare haters.” It is absolutely essential that support for Israel continue to remain a bipartisan issue regardless of who is elected the next president.

After all, the close ties that exist between the US and Israel are hardly new. Their roots extend back further even than Israel’s establishment 64 years ago. Over two centuries ago, America’s founding fathers were inspired by the Bible, and many considered themselves to be the creators of a “New Israel.”

Likewise, Israel’s founders cherished the same values enshrined in the US Constitution – free speech and assembly, respect for individual rights, an independent judiciary.

Unlike the vast majority of countries throughout the world, where national identity is inexorably tied to blood and land, Israel and America are two of the few countries – New Zealand and Australia also come to mind – where covenant preceded nationhood.

A group of people united by shared ideals and vision arrived in a land in which they were not born to create a nation and realize a dream. In the case of Israel, it was a “coming home” after nearly two millennia of exile. In the case of America, it was the creation of a “New Israel.”

To this day, America and Israel share common interests and goals. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state to consistently stand alongside the US on strategic issues. In the ongoing regional upheaval, Israel is the only stable state on which the US can completely rely. And the two countries cooperate in a broad range of nonmilitary fields – humanitarian, commercial and scientific. The levels of freedom enjoyed in Israel are unparalleled in the Middle East, and America remains a beacon of liberty for the entire world. The vast majority of Americans understand this.

Testimony to this bipartisan affinity was the Congress’s repeated standing ovations – 29 in all, according to ABC News – for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu when he addressed a packed House chamber of both Republicans and Democrats in May 2011.

Both Romney and Obama are products of American society. That’s why both intimately understand and appreciate American’s special relationship with Israel.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was right on Tuesday when he stressed that Israel would continue to enjoy American backing irrespective of who won election.

Interviewed on Israel Radio, Ayalon said: “We will continue to enjoy bipartisan support in the US, so the result of the election almost doesn’t matter.”

For Israel, he added, “the best American president is the president who will be best for America. The one whom the Americans elect.”

Regardless of who wins the 2012 US presidential election, the ties between America and the Jewish state will remain strong. The two countries have too much in common and too much to gain from their special relationship to allow petty partisan differences to drive a wedge between them.

Kosher competition

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/05/2012 23:10

Greed, profiteering and fraud are no strangers to the kosher supervision business.

In the memorable phrasing of a 1972 Hebrew national hot dog TV ad campaign in the US, kosher food “answers to a higher authority.” But, unfortunately, the reality is sometimes more mundane.

Greed, profiteering and fraud are no strangers to the kosher supervision business. While keeping kosher might be a mitzva, setting up the apparatus to provide consumers and restaurant-goers with food that meets Orthodox standards is generally driven by a desire to make money. As in any business, there are straight and crooked characters.

In what appears to be a sincere effort to improve the way the supervision is performed, a group of Jerusalemites – restaurateurs, rabbis and activists – have banded together to break the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly over it. Restaurants that serve a religious clientele – but are not certified by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel – are independently keeping kosher.

Last Friday afternoon, Carousela, a cafe in the capital’s Rehavia neighborhood, hosted an event supporting restaurants that serve kosher food but refuse to receive official kosher certification from the Chief Rabbinate.

The event was organized by HaTenua HaYerushalmit – The Jerusalemite Movement social action organization.

In some cases, the break with the Chief Rabbinate came as the result of dissatisfaction with the services it provides. The rabbinate’s kashrut supervisors, who receive hundreds – sometimes thousands – of shekels a month – rarely came to make inspections, restaurant owners said. When they did arrive the examination was cursory.

In other cases, restaurateurs complained that the supervisors’ knowledge of the laws was lacking or that they behaved inappropriately when on the premises.

In an investigative report that appeared recently in Makor Rishon, it was found that in several cases the Chief Rabbinate declined to take away a restaurant’s kashrut certificate even after non-kosher food was found on the premises.

All these allegations seem to point to a rabbinate riddled with inefficiencies, substandard personnel and, perhaps, corruption.

Complicating the situation is the fact that the Chief Rabbinate has no incentive to change. That is because it has a monopoly over kosher supervision that is enshrined in law. The 1983 Kosher Fraud Law makes it a crime to advertise a food item or a restaurant as “kosher” unless the Chief Rabbinate provides certification to that effect. A restaurant that is unhappy with the services provided by the Chief Rabbinate cannot simply abandon it and turn to another kashrut supervision operation. Its only option is to pay more to supplement the supervision provided by the Chief Rabbinate with an additional supervision apparatus such as Badatz or Beit Yosef. The capitalist forces of free competition that exist, say, in the US kosher supervision market, are nonexistent in Israel.

The best solution to this situation is to break the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly over kashrut supervision and adopt the sort of model that exists in the US.

Instead of entrusting the Chief Rabbinate with both providing kashrut supervision and enforcing kashrut fraud laws – which creates inherent conflicts of interest – a state-run, secular consumer protection agency should be responsible for enforcing kashrut fraud laws.

It is generally accepted among consumers that “kosher” refers to undisputed Orthodox Jewish standards regarding food preparation. Any restaurateur or food producer who tries to sell food as kosher without meeting consumers’ expectations would be in violation of the law and subject to fines. Adopting such a model would open up the supervision market to competition. Restaurant owners and food producers dissatisfied with one supervisor would have the option of switching to another. Kashrut supervisors interested in maintaining clientele would be forced to provide high-quality services at competitive prices.

Kashrut supervisors may or may not answer to a higher authority. But the introduction of competition will provide them with the much needed incentive to strive for excellence. We hope the resulting improvement in kashrut supervision will give the organized Jewish religion a better name.

Peace divide

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/04/2012 20:55

The capacity to make peace depends on changing perceptions – including the national narratives we tell ourselves and our peoples. The fallout from Abbas’s Channel 2 interview is yet another dismal indicator that the Palestinian people have yet to be prepared by their leadership for such a change.

PHOTO: SCREENSHOT

In an interview last week with Channel 2’s Udi Segal, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas presented a surprisingly moderate stance vis-à-vis Palestinians’ “right of return.”

Though he clarified that the issue would have to be settled in negotiations, Abbas admitted that he personally had no “right” to return permanently to his birthplace in Safed.

“Palestine now for me is the [June 4], 1967, borders, with east Jerusalem as its capital,” he said. “This is now and forever.... This is Palestine for me. I am [a] refugee, but I am living in Ramallah.”

Abbas even went on to reject references in official Palestinian television to places such as Acre, Ramle and Jaffa – all cities well within sovereign Israel – as “Palestine,” and added, “I believe that [the] the West Bank and Gaza is Palestine and the other parts [are] Israel.”

Abbas’s comments for Channel 2 were reminiscent of statements the PA president purportedly made during negotiations in 2008 with then-prime minister Ehud Olmert and then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

According to the “PaliLeaks” documents apparently leaked by the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit to Al Jazeera andThe Guardian and made public in January 2011, Abbas admitted that “on numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or even 1 million – that would mean the end of Israel.”

Both the Channel 2 interview and the PaliLeaks documents seemed to reveal a refreshing pragmatism and willingness to compromise among the Palestinian leadership.

One of the major obstacles to peace – the issue of the Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” for millions of “refugees” – appeared to be eminently soluble.

Unfortunately, as in the aftermath of the PaliLeaks revelations, high-ranking Palestinian officials rushed to “clarify” Abbas’s comments, revealing once again the yawning divide that continues to separate our two peoples.

Rather than using Abbas’s comments on the “right of return” as an opportunity to show the world that Palestinians are willing to show flexibility on a maximalist demand that would mean the end of Israel as a state with a Jewish majority, the official PA reaction was the complete opposite.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, responding to sharp criticism of the PA president on the Palestinian street, reiterated Palestinian intransigence on the refugee issue.

“The position of the Palestinian leadership remains fixed,” Abu Rudaineh said. “The refugees and the right of return are among the final-status issues that will be negotiated with the Israelis.” He went on to say that Abbas’s interview was nothing more than a tactical move aimed at “affecting Israeli public opinion.”

Even if we are to take Abbas’s comments at face value and believe that he and others in the PA are responsible leaders sincerely interested in working toward a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel, this is not enough. Abbas is paying for his own and his leadership’s insistence on saying one thing in public and something else altogether behind closed doors or in an interview aimed at the Israel public.

When speaking to the Palestinians, the Abbas-led PA has consistently marginalized or outright denied the Jewish people’s historic, religious and cultural ties to the Land of Israel. It has glorified terrorists who have massacred Israelis, while depicting the Jews of Israel as evil and rapacious.

Given the narrative they are fed by their leaders, why would the Palestinian people agree to compromise with an ostensibly illegitimate Zionist entity on the refugee issue? Why would they be willing to give up a “right of return” that has become an integral part of Palestinian identity? Abbas and other Palestinian leaders could and should have worked to prepare their people for peace with Israel.

They could and should have adjusted the public messages to the Palestinian people to reflect the types of sane and realistic statements made to Channel 2 or behind closed doors in negotiations with Israel.

The capacity to make peace depends on changing perceptions – including the national narratives we tell ourselves and our peoples. The fallout from Abbas’s Channel 2 interview is yet another dismal indicator that the Palestinian people have yet to be prepared by their leadership for such a change.

Fischer's warning

By JPOST EDITORIAL

10/30/2012 23:51

Bank of Israel chief lowered the interest rate in order help rejuvenate the slowing economy.

It is reassuring to have a world-class economist at the helm of the Bank of Israel. Just knowing that Stanley Fischer – a former chief economist of the World Bank and former professor at MIT whose students included the current chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke – is responsible for our monetary policy can have a calming effect on the economy as we approach turbulent times.

When Fischer expresses concern about a particular aspect of our economy, political leaders should sit up and pay attention. The Bank of Israel governor is, apparently, unhappy with our overheated housing market.

In a move billed as nothing short of “dramatic,” Fischer ordered the banks to lower the loan-tovalue (LTV) ratio to 50 percent for mortgages provided to house purchasers who intend their purchase to be an investment – including foreign investors. Mortgages for a first house will be limited to a LTV ratio of 75%.

The move is designed to counter the effect of yet another prime interest rate cut from 2.25% to 2%.

Fischer lowered the interest rate in order help rejuvenate the slowing economy.

However, lower interest rates also tend to push investors out of solid investments such as government bonds or savings plans offered by banks and to encourage them to look for alternative “solid” investments such as the housing market.

Rent yields pay off the low interest; capital gains from rising real estate prices (housing prices are up 2.9% in the past six months) provide the investor with easy profits.

Of the 20% of Israelis who hold mortgages, it is estimated that 9% are investors while only 3% are those who own only one home. About a quarter of all house purchases are made by investors.

Fischer is concerned that banks are overly exposed to the housing market. Some 40% of banks’ credit is extended to building contractors and home owners. A sudden decrease in housing prices could result in an economic crisis similar to the US subprime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s.

By restricting the LTV ration to just 50%, Fischer hopes to reduce banks’ exposure and slow the sharp rise in housing prices by lowering demand for houses.

Still, Fischer’s ability to fight rising housing prices is limited. Restricting the LTV ratio might make it more difficult for investors to buy houses.

But as long as investors recognize that there is a severe shortage of housing in Israel they will have an incentive to invest in the housing market.

Fertility rates are higher in Israel than anywhere in the Western world and they have been for decades. Every year tens of thousands of young families add to the demand for housing. In parallel, the Israel Lands Authority, which controls the supply of land for housing, is notoriously inefficient and burdened by red tape. As a result, the construction process is dragged out and land prices remain high.

The only way to truly fight housing prices is by focusing not on demand, but on supply. Currently, the number of houses constructed every year cannot keep up with demand. More new housing – for sale and for rent – needs to be provided. In parallel, the zoning process for housing needs to be made more efficient, while at the same time not compromising the necessary oversight that prevents damage to the environment or to historical sites. Replacing old, low-story buildings in city centers with high-rises should be encouraged as a way of limiting to a minimum building in open green areas.

Only the government, which is currently focused on elections, can direct all these changes. Voters must demand that a solution to the housing shortage be a central issue in the election campaigns of all the major political parties.

The next government must commit itself to grappling with the housing shortage. We are lucky to have a man as talented as Fischer heading the Bank of Israel. But there is only so much one man can do.

Connecting to the South

By JPOST EDITORIAL

10/29/2012 23:43

Regardless of the strategy or strategies implemented by the government, it is imperative that the residents of the South know that they have not been abandoned.

Since the latest escalation in southern Israel began a little over a week ago, hundreds of mortar shells and rockets have been fired at cities and towns there. Hamas and the myriad Salafist and jihadist organizations operating inside Gaza that are launching their ballistic attacks on Israel have disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in places like Sderot, Kibbutz Nirim and Beersheba.

Schools have been closed down, families have been forced to spend hours locked up in bomb shelters and the regular pace of life has been underscored by the constant fear of the next mortar shell or rocket falling from the sky.

Israel’s options for stopping the barrage of fire from Gaza are limited. Diplomatically, Jerusalem might succeed – with American help – in putting pressure on Cairo to use its influence with Hamas to stop the shooting. Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi might be interested in preventing further escalation between Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza in order to avoid getting dragged into a direct conflict with Jerusalem and Washington.

But even if Morsi agrees to attempt to put pressure on the Hamas leadership, it is not at all clear that Hamas is fully capable of bringing about a cease-fire.

Firstly, many of the terrorist groups operating inside Gaza are not fully under Hamas’s control. Secondly, in the world of fundamentalist Islamic politics that aggrandizes death and destruction, Hamas does not want to be perceived as conciliatory and weak vis-à-vis Israel.

Israel’s military options are likewise limited. It could continue the present tactic of launching either a preemptive attack or retaliation – either by air or on the ground – for each attempt by Hamas or other terrorist organizations to strike against Israel. Our armed forces could supplement this ongoing military response with targeted killings directed at the upper echelon of the various terrorist organizations operating in Gaza.

The IDF could also initiate a escalation from the air, the sea and the ground aimed at drawing out and eliminating additional terrorists operating in Gaza and destroying their infrastructure. Though such an initiated escalation could strengthen Israel’s deterrence, it could also lead to a full-fledged war, complete with unintended civilian casualties and international condemnation.

However, in the short run, none of these tactics will enable Israelis living in the South to return to normalcy and end the terror of living under the constant threat of rockets and mortar fire. In fact, an initiated escalation or stepping up targeted killings would only result in an increased barrage of fire from Gaza – at least in the short-term – and more suffering for the South’s residents.

Regardless of the strategy or strategies implemented by the government, it is imperative that the residents of the South know that they have not been abandoned.

Fellow Israeli citizens living in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and other locations that are – for the time being – safely out of range of the mortar shells and rockets shot from Gaza should show their solidarity with the South’s residents.

The cabinet, which on Sunday approved a three-year, NIS 270 million plan for the building of 1,700 bomb shelters in towns and cities located three to seven kilometers from the border with Gaza, should also consider holding one of its upcoming weekly meetings in the South.

Radio and television news programs should make an effort to broadcast from the South. And if, due to the security risk, it is too much to ask for more fortunate Israelis to actually visit the South, schools, youth groups, synagogues and even sports clubs should make an effort to remember the plight of their brothers and sisters.

Above all, we must avoid a situation in which large segments of society go about their business as though all is well. We must not be disconnected from what is happening in the South.

Stability in unity

By JPOST EDITORIAL

10/28/2012 21:15

Large right-of-center list may bring political stability.

Sharp criticism was not long in coming after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s surprise announcement that the Likud and Yisrael Beytenuwould run on a join list in the elections for the 19th Knesset.

Much of the criticism seemed to emanate more from a desire to defend narrow personal interests than a genuine concern for the greater good of the nation’s political stability.

Some Likud ministers, Knesset members and would-be Knesset members have expressed fear that the joint Likud-Yisrael Beytenu list, rather than producing more seats than the two parties’ current 42 (Likud 27; Yisrael Beytenu 15), will lead to a fall in their Knesset representation.

Likud MKs and ministers fighting for a Knesset seat are afraid that the merger could jeopardize their place on the Likud candidates list. Likud ministers with a strong support base in Likud’s central committee, such as Gideon Sa’ar, Israel Katz and Silvan Shalom, who expected to rank high on the party’s list, are understandably unhappy with the prospect of seeing their places taken by Yisrael Beytenu parliamentarians chosen by an internal committee controlled by Liberman.

Another claim, one that smacks of ethnic chauvinism, is that the merger, which will bring to the joint list a large proportion of voters and politicians who are immigrants from the former Soviet Union, will scare away the Mizrahim – Israelis whose families immigrated to Israel from Muslim countries in the Middle East, who make up a large part of the Likud’s voters.

However, if the deal is analyzed with the interests of the nation’s political system in mind, its pluses clearly outweigh its minuses.

The most obvious benefit is the creation of a single, large right-wing party with the potential to bring more stability to our political system. Parties left-of-center might also form a united list in response to the Likud-Yisrael Beytenu move.

Ideally, two large parties – one on the Left and one on the Right – will represent the two mainstream positions on cardinal issues such as security and socio-economics.

Smaller parties – particularly national-religious and haredi factions – would be less able to take advantage of our splintered political system to exert influence that far exceeds their size.

Over the past few decades, the size of the two largest political parties – traditionally Labor and the Likud – has steadily decreased due to the establishment of various short-lived centrist parties. Until 1996, the two largest parties consistently held a total of more than 70 Knesset seats.

Since 1999, the two largest parties have garnered less than half the Knesset seats. This has hurt what political scientists call governance or governability – the ability of governments to make decisions and to follow through on them.

A 2005 study by Doron Navot and Eli Reches found that 70 percent of government decisions – on subjects ranging from public housing to privatization of the sea ports, from reforms in the Israel Electric Corporation to the construction of a light rail system in Tel Aviv – are left unimplemented.

And as Amnon Rubinstein and Adam Wolfson wrote in their book Absence of Government: How to Rectify the System, sometimes these ignored government decisions result in disaster. Our sorrowfully inadequate firefighting capabilities – shockingly revealed in the 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire disaster – were the direct result of consecutive government decisions calling for the revamping of our firefighting services remaining unimplemented.

Undoubtedly, election reforms such as the raising of the threshold for a political party to get elected to the Knesset from just 2% of the vote and the institution of regional elections for some seats – and perhaps increasing the total number of MKs – would go a long way toward improving political stability and politicians’ accountability.

However, the formation of a large right-of-center list – which might inspire the left-of-center parties to do the same – could bring much-needed political stability and a higher level of governance to our political system.

Holocaust images

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=266456

This year, as in previous years ahead of Holocaust Remembrance Day, the media have focused heavily on the severe poverty and substandard living conditions of many Holocaust survivors.

Newspapers, radio, TV and the Internet have featured profiles of Holocaust survivors living in rundown flats that lack basic utilities.

Survivors who were on the receiving end of the lethal hatred that swept across Europe are disappearing, and many of those who remain are in desperate need of aid. Over the past year alone, about 12,000 Holocaust survivors have passed away – more than one every hour – according to data published this week by the Foundation for the Benefit of Holocaust Victims in Israel based on a survey carried out by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee-affiliated Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. If in 1961, during the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the 500,000 survivors living here made up about 25 percent of the population, today there are just 198,000, about 2.5% of the population.

Probably the most infuriating pieces of data from that same Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute report – based on a survey of 52,500 survivors supported by the foundation – is that 5% complained they did not have enough to eat. In Israel of all places, it is essential that everything be done to ensure that no Holocaust survivor goes hungry or is left without proper medical care.

However, the annual publicity campaigns that sweep the nation at this time of year with the implicit message that not enough is being done for Holocaust survivors – and that the State of Israel is to blame – project a distorted picture of reality. Over the past year the government has increased the amount of annual aid to Holocaust survivors by NIS 6 million to NIS 206m. In addition, the Conference for Material Claims Against Germany and various charities also contribute to the welfare of the survivors.

One cannot help but wonder whether these campaigns are motivated by the desire on the part of various charity organizations to exploit Holocaust Remembrance Day as an opportunity to fund-raise not just for the survivors but also to perpetuate expensive administrative infrastructures that employ hundreds.

Allegations of fraud at Hazon Yeshaya, a charity that claimed to feed Holocaust survivors, have probably not made it any easier to raise money.

Campaigns that focus on the poverty of survivors also create an image of them as charity cases, when, in reality, many of those who lived through the hell of the Shoah somehow found the strength to put all that behind them and embark on the daunting challenges that faced the fledgling Jewish state – fighting our many enemies, absorbing immigration and creating a society made up primarily of refugees and immigrants.

As Holocaust scholar Hanna Yablonka has pointed out, the vast majority of survivors who came to Israel focused on rebuilding their lives and building the new Jewish state – and they were wildly successful, worthy of being called heroes.

“Most survivors found a core of inner strength that is hard for us to comprehend,” noted Yablonka.

“Their collective story is one of personal and human victory.”

Holocaust survivors have left their mark in every field from building and construction to the IDF, industry, law and culture. They became prominent painters, graphic artists, poets, writers, dancers, actors, academics and cultural icons.

Indeed, it is impossible to imagine the State of Israel today without their many contributions.

It is essential that we do everything in our power to ensure that needy survivors’ live their last years on earth without want and in dignity. But we must not allow the image of the survivor as a charity case to dominate public discourse.

As the number of the survivors dwindles, there is another story to tell, a heroic one of overcoming the horrors of their past and the adversity of their current situation, providing an inspiration to us all.           

Benefit of the doubt

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=266313

The speed and zeal with which many jumped to indict Lt.-Col. Shalom Eisner, deputy commander of the Jordan Valley Brigade, was maddening.

Admittedly, the footage of Eisner bashing the face of a Danish national in his early 20s with the side of his M-16 rifle appeared to show him using gratuitous violence.

But “evidence”– no matter how incriminating – provided by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) should have been treated with extreme suspicion. Dedicated commanders such as Eisner, who have served our country with distinction, should have been given the benefit of the doubt – at least until a thorough investigation is conducted.

Eisner, in particular, has in the past exhibited heroism during wartime and sensitivity toward the Palestinian population. During the Saluki battle in the Second Lebanon War, he led soldiers in battle and helped extract a tank crew under fire. About a year ago, he helped a Palestinian woman give birth after which the baby underwent life-saving procedures under his command.

The ISM, by contrast, has a history of high-intensity confrontations with IDF soldiers that have on occasion led to the death of its activists. One well-known example is the March 2003 case of Rachel Corrie who, according to an IDF investigation, was accidentally run over in Rafah, Gaza, by an IDF bulldozer uncovering an arms-smuggling tunnel.

ISM’s goal is to provoke IDF soldiers and capture on film the temporary lapse of a soldier such as Eisner – trained to fight wars on conventional and non-conventional battlefields – not to deal with crowd control and wage battles fought on YouTube and Twitter with trouble-making provocateurs from abroad and their ever-ready camera crews.

The ISM and other so-called “peace groups” choose to stage these provocations – often attended by European youths looking for action – in Israel, because they know that the risk of getting seriously hurt or killed is low.

Unlike most countries in the world, Israel’s security forces do everything humanly possible to use non-violent means to control unlawful demonstrations. In other places, ISM activists have been murdered. The case of Vittorio Arrigoni – abducted and executed by hanging in April 2011 by Salafists in the Gaza Strip – is one such example.

While the blow dealt by Eisner to the Danish activist as shown on the video clip broadcast on TV stations here and around the world was deplorable, its severity – which has more to do with international opinion and less to do with the well-being of the mildly injured activist – should not be blown out of proportion. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the video footage was tampered to make it appear that Eisner struck the Dane for no reason at all.

Unfortunately, our leaders were quick to jump to conclusions even before the IDF and police managed to get their hands on the original, unedited, video footage.

They seemed to think that we could gain points in the eyes of our enemies and critics – and the international media – by overreacting and pre-judging the case.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared: “Such behavior does not characterize IDF soldiers and officers, and has no place in the Israel Defense Forces and in the State of Israel.”

President Shimon Peres said he had been “shocked and disgusted” when he saw the videotape of Eisner striking the activist. And IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz called the incident “severe.”

The ease with which these leaders and others denounced Eisner conveys a mixed message to our soldiers.

Instead of providing them with the trust and backing they so desperately need when confronting radical activists bent on disrupting public order, our leaders issued hasty statements based on partial evidence. This sort of response will inevitably undermine IDF soldiers’ confidence in their next confrontation with anti-Israel activists.

The prime minister, the president and others who leveled criticism at Eisner should have refrained from commenting until the findings of a proper probe are released. It is the least that a man with Eisner’s merits deserves.

Serving together

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=265609

It is no easy matter for the IDF to bring together soldiers from diverse backgrounds to cooperate for the common goal of defending the State of Israel.

Societal fault lines between religious and secular, right-wing and left-wing, Jewish and non-Jewish are very sensitive. With little provocation, disagreements can quickly devolve into serious confrontations and disrupt the sort of unity of purpose needed during military duty. Therefore, a willingness to compromise to find common ground is essential.

Adherence to Jewish law – Halacha – is an important aspect of the IDF’s day-to-day functioning, as it should be in a state that defines itself as Jewish. By providing them with prayer time and kosher food and by commemorating the Shabbat and holidays, the army enables religious soldiers to feel comfortable serving in alongside their secular fellows. Occasionally, however, creating this common ground can cause some inconveniences for secular soldiers.

That was the case on Passover eve – which fell last Shabbat – when a group of IDF soldiers, both religious and secular, were forced to eat cold food because of an IDF rabbi’s interpretation of Halacha.

Infantry soldiers from the Haruv Battalion – one of several battalions belonging to the Kfir Brigade, responsible for maintaining security in Judea and Samaria – returned to their army base from military activity late on Passover eve. After washing up and sitting down to read the Haggada and conduct the Seder, the soldiers were told that they would be served matza, salads and cold cuts, but no hot food. Apparently one of the cooks had desecrated Shabbat and Passover by connecting a hot plate after sundown to heat up food. Another cook noticed this and told the rabbi, who ruled that the food could not be eaten that day. Since IDF health regulations prohibit the refrigeration of food once it has been cooked and prepared for serving, all of the heated food had to be thrown out.

It could be that the rabbi was overzealous in his ruling.

According to many halachic authorities, desecration of the Shabbat by an irreligious Jew can be seen as unintentional. Under the circumstances, only an intentional desecration of the Shabbat would make it forbidden to eat the food.

Nevertheless, after the rabbi made his ruling, the brigade commander enforced it. All soldiers, both religious and secular, were obligated by IDF regulations to refrain from eating the food. Some of the soldiers complained to their parents. One mother told Army Radio that she could not understand how the brigade commander could allow his soldiers to “go starve” on Passover eve: “Rabbis are running things in the IDF.

The army has become haredi [ultra-Orthodox] and there is no rational decision-making.”

WHILE WE sympathize with the mother, the incident should not be blown out of proportion. The soldiers ate cold food; they did not starve. And while it appears that more media attention has been devoted in recent years to religious-related tensions in the IDF due to the sharp rise in the number of religious men serving, it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that rabbis are running the IDF. If anything, media attention to the Passover food incident has more to do with parents’ increasing willingness to interfere with the inner workings of the IDF.

Bringing together religious and secular Israelis in a military framework entails compromise on both sides.

Secular soldiers need to understand that enforcing kosher rules enables their religious fellows to serve with them.

But religious soldiers and their rabbis also have an obligation. They should do their best to find leniencies in Halacha where possible so that secular soldiers are not forced to endure unnecessary burdens.

Whether the issue is gender segregation, threats to refuse military orders to evacuate a settlement, or adherence to Shabbat, religious soldiers and their rabbis should embrace moderation, not religious extremism.

Military service is a cooperative endeavor of cardinal importance. Succeeding at this endeavor entails mutual compromise and sensitivity to the needs and desires of those who hold different views.

Balancing power

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=265448

Judging from the reactions of opposition lawmakers one would think that a new legislative initiative called Basic Law: Legislation is downright undemocratic.

Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On quipped that Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, the driving force behind the bill, misread the Passover Haggada, and “does not understand the meaning of the Festival of Freedom,” because the bill claims to protect freedoms, but actually violates them and called for “all parties who fear for democracy” to form a united front against the bill.

Meanwhile, Labor chairwoman Shelly Yacimovich declared that Neeman’s memorandum “empties the Supreme Court of its content.”

“The justice minister has chosen to present a bill that paves the way for wildly irresponsible legislation that will increase dissent, bickering and clashes,” she said.

Several Kadima MKs also expressed their opposition to the bill. For instance, Yoel Hasson called it “an anti-democratic whim of a government hostile to the rule of law.” But it seems that these lawmakers’ opposition to Basic Law: Legislation has less to do with substantive criticism and more to do with political expediency.

If passed, Neeman’s proposal would actually strengthen the Supreme Court and more carefully delineate its powers vis-à-vis the Knesset, ending decades of bickering and tension between lawmakers complaining of the hyper activism of the Supreme Court and champions of a strong judiciary warning of the tyranny of the majority.

If passed in its current form, Basic Law: Legislation would for the first time give quasi-constitutional status to all the basic laws such as Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which protects human rights – particularly of the minority, and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, which protects the right of every citizen to freely engage in the occupation of his or her choice.

Previous attempts to develop anything resembling a constitution have failed miserably due to the deep rifts in our society between religious and secular; Jew and non- Jew; libertarians and interventionists.

Neeman’s Basic Law: Legislation – now in pre-bill memorandum form – would also anchor in law former chief justice Aharon Barak’s “constitutional revolution.”

The majority of a panel of nine Supreme Court justices would be empowered by law to annul Knesset laws which are interpreted by the court to contradict one of the basic laws. Currently, there is no law that upholds the court’s power to exercise judicial review of legislation. This is a major lacuna which has resulted in incessant bickering and tension between the judicial and legislative branches of government.

The aspect of Basic Law: Legislation which is being most widely attacked by opposition MKs is a clause that would empower a super majority of Knesset members to overrule a Supreme Court decision to annul a Knesset law. The Knesset would be allowed to bypass the Supreme Court if at least 65 MKs vote in favor in three separate Knesset readings. And renewal of the annulled law will remain in effect for just five years, after which time it can be renewed for a similar period of time.

In a populist attempt to present itself as a champion of a free and independent judiciary fighting against a tyranny of the right-wing majority in the Knesset the opposition has attacked this clause as “anti-democratic.”

But opposition MKs have conveniently forgotten to mention that back in 2004 former chief justice Barak, perhaps the best known and most articulate proponent of judicial activism, actually supported almost identical legislation. The only substantial difference was that 70 MKs – not 65 – would be needed to overrule a Supreme Court decision to knock down a Knesset law on the grounds it contradicted a basic law.

With most MKs not even present at the majority of votes in the plenum, it will be no easy matter to garner 65 MKs in three separate votes. Although he has not voiced his opinion on Neeman’s memorandum, it seems unlikely that Barak would oppose it just because of five MKs. Minister-without-portfolio Bennie Begin (Likud) has said that raising the number to 70 MKs is necessary in order to protect the autonomy of the Supreme Court.

The question of 65 or 70 MKs is a relatively minor matter that can easily be negotiated. It is no reason to scrap a bill that could take a major step toward improving the balance of power between the Supreme Court and the Knesset.

Shame on Grass

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=265331

Germany’s relationship with the Jewish people is complicated. Jews cannot and will not bring themselves to forgive Germany for the Holocaust – reparations notwithstanding. At the same time, Germany has gone a long way toward facing its dark past. And Chancellor Angela Merkel is perhaps one of Germany’s most pro-Israeli leaders ever.

As a result, an uncomfortable dynamic is created: While it is legitimate for Germans, as friends of Israel, to offer constructive criticism of Israeli policies, it is understandably not easy for Israelis to accept such criticism, coming as it does from a people who proved more than any other on the face of the earth the Jews’ need to stop relying on the goodwill of host countries and to embrace instead political self-determination and sovereignty in their historical homeland.

But when he penned the poem, “What Must Be Said,” Günter Grass, Germany’s most famous living writer who is considered a moral compass in his homeland, callously displayed a disappointing moral bankruptcy.

Grass’s poem and the attempts by himself and other of his countrymen to defend it raise the question whether Germans – at least those supporting Grass – have learned anything from history.

In “What Must Be Said,” Grass claims that it is Israel, not the fanatic Shi’ite mullahs of Iran, that “endangers an already fragile world peace.” Grass must know that Israel – even if it were to launch a military strike against Iran to stop it from developing a nuclear bomb – would use conventional weapons.

Nevertheless, he concocts a far-fetched and completely unsubstantiated scenario, according to which Israel will resort to nuclear capabilities reportedly at its disposal for “war games, at the end of which those of us who survive will at best be footnotes.”

This is the same Israel, which, if foreign news reports are to be believed, responsibly refrained from using its nuclear capabilities, even during periods of existential threat such as the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when defense minister Moshe Dayan warned of the “destruction of the third Temple” and Israel’s political leadership, including prime minister Golda Meir, were genuinely concerned that the combined armies of the Arab states would succeed in destroying Israel.

Why would Grass make up a story that Israel is planning to use nuclear weapons against the Iranian people? Grass claims in his poem that he remained silent until now because he knew he would be labeled an anti-Semite.

But what else can be said about a man who ignores Iran’s deadly combination of Holocaust denial and sponsorship of terrorism against Israel and instead singles out for censure Israel, a country seeking since its establishment to live in peace with its neighbors, though stubbornly refusing to be “wiped off the map”? Why is Grass so intent on forcing Israel to relinquish its reported nuclear capability? Does he really think that he, an 84-year-old German who was a member of the Waffen SS as a teenager, should be the one recommending that Israel compromise its deterrence capability and, in the process, expose itself to existential threats?

Jews have ample unpleasant experiences of what it is to be powerless in the face of our enemies and to be let down by others who have the ability to defend us but choose not to.

The establishment of a robust Israel with the necessary means to defend itself against its enemies is the Jewish people’s answer to that humiliating state of affairs.

As noted by Benjamin Weinthal, The Jerusalem Post’s correspondent in Germany, the controversy surrounding Grass’s poem has brought to the fore a modern manifestation of anti-Semitism, which is actually a form of mental pathology. Germans such as Grass are filled with Holocaust-era guilt. To alleviate their dissonance, some Germans project their feelings of guilt onto Israel.

But regardless of the psychological mechanics behind his despicable poem, Grass, at the end of his life, has now been “exposed.” We hope he regains his moral bearings and issues a complete retraction. Anything less will cast a shadow on Grass’s reputation as a moral voice for Germans who came of age in the generation after the Shoah.

Defending 'humrot'

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=265050

Passover is a time to be with family and friends, to celebrate the advent of springtime with outdoor trips and to focus on one’s personal renewal as nature renews itself after the long winter.

But Passover is also a time when Jews tend to adopt a slew of stringencies, or humrot, in their Jewish practices.

Jews are particularly fastidious about what can and cannot be eaten. During Passover, even a speck of hametz – unleavened wheat, spelt, barley, oat and rye products – can make a huge pot of food unkosher. As a result, an inordinately feverish atmosphere of zealotry surrounds the culinary habits of Jews during this holiday. Some Jews refuse to drink water from the Kinneret on Passover for fear that a piece of bread fell into the huge freshwater lake and a minuscule particle of it found its way to the tap. This year, as in past years, a representative from the Jewish National Fund sold all of the hametz in our national forests to a non- Jew so the Jewish state would not transgress the prohibition of possessing the stuff.

Ashkenazi Jews, and some Jewish communities from North Africa, also have a tradition of not eating various types of legumes, or kitniyot – corn, rice, peas, lentils and beans – because these products were stored together with grains or because they can be used to produce foods that look like bread or cake. The precise list of items that constitute kitniyot is a subject of debate. The Belz Hassidic sect will not eat garlic because generations ago in Eastern Europe, garlic was preserved inside sacks of wheat. Other hassidic sects will not eat vegetables that cannot be peeled, for fear they have been coated with a substance that contains hametz. Many Jews will go to great lengths to make sure that matza does not come into contact with water or other liquids; some go as far as eating matza separately, changing the tablecloth before commencing with a meal.

MANY SEE adherence to all these humrot as a form of neurotic preoccupation with the trivial. After all, aren’t the grand ideas of Passover – the meaning of freedom, the birth of the Jewish people, God’s relationship with the Jews – the point of the holiday, and not the petty preoccupation with customs that lack relevance in the modern age of industrialized food production? And adherence to humrot in one area of practice can lead to leniencies in other areas. Refusing to eat at the home of a less observant Jew might be a humra with regard to the food, but it is a leniency with regard to hurting that Jew’s feelings. And when supermarket chains decide, as they did this year, not to accept bottles for deposit returns during Passover, it might be a precaution against having the remnants of beer, whiskey or other hametz beverages in their possession, but it is liable to prevent the recycling of thousands of bottles.

YET THERE is also a positive aspect to all these seemingly over-zealous humrot. Adhering to stringencies can emanate from a sincere desire to give expression to one’s willingness to do God’s will. It can also be an outward expression of one’s strong feeling of commitment to tradition.

A large percentage of Israelis actually identify with this positive aspect of Passover humrot. A recent survey by the Panels Institute for Gesher, an organization involved in healing the rift between religious and secular, revealed that many Israelis, including those who define themselves as secular, have a strong commitment to maintaining Israel’s Jewish character. Asked whether it was necessary to continue to enforce the Hametz Law, which prohibits the public display of hametz during Passover, 56 percent of respondents answered that it was.

In essence, the Hametz Law is a humra. There is no prohibition in Jewish law against displaying hametz.

Nevertheless, the majority of Israelis want to see this humra remain in place. They rightly believe it is unfitting for a state that defines itself as Jewish to allow the public display of a food that Jews throughout the ages have scrupulously refrained from eating. Jews might be crazy about their traditions, but sometimes a little bit of craziness can be a good thing. It shows you care.

Kiryat Shmona's winning model

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=264701

In recent weeks, our soccer league has been plagued by a spate of bad news. Most recently, there was the brutal beating of Hapoel Haifa midfielder Ali Khatib, who, after trying to hit a rival player, was head-butted by Maccabi Petah Tikva’s goalkeeping coach Ami Genish and, after falling to the ground, kicked in the face by Yigal Maman, a Petah Tikva fan with enough clout to receive a special access pass from the club.

This disturbing incident was preceded by the rampage of a group of Betar Jerusalem fans in the food court at the Malha Mall. The hooligans shouted “Death to Arabs” and physically accosted several Arab employees of the mall. Indeed, this season has been marred by violence.

But on Monday, there was a beacon of light.

Hapoel Ironi Kiryat Shmona, a low-budget team from a town known more for the Katyusha rockets once fired at it from Lebanon and its struggling local economy than for its soccer prowess, sealed the national championship on Monday night. This means it will win the league for the first time since it was established in 2000.

It was also the first time a small club beat out the big four – Maccabi Haifa, Betar Jerusalem, Maccabi Tel Aviv and Hapoel Tel Aviv – since Bnei Yehuda won the championship in the 1989/90 season.

The message, sent by providence or fate or whatever, was that sometimes the good guys win.

True, Kiryat Shmona benefited from unusually weak performances by the better-funded clubs. But there was a certain element of justice in the fact that Hapoel Tel Aviv, Kiryat Shmona’s only serious challenger, was further set back after being docked three points because of fan violence and a post-match player brawl.

In contrast, Kiryat Shmona’s peaceful crowd and players have stayed away from all forms of hooliganism, concentrating instead on the game. Adding to the beauty of the moment was the picture of Salah Hasarma, 38, of Biana, an Arab village near Karmiel, who has played with Kiryat Shmona since 2006, receiving the trophies together with Adrian Rochet, 24, of Neot Mordechai, a Kibbutz near Kiryat Shmona, who came up through the club’s youth department to become the team’s captain. It seemed to demonstrate that coexistence between Arabs and Jews was possible, even in a place like Kiryat Shmona, which has over the years been exposed to cross-border attacks such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s 1974 massacre, which left 18 dead.

Hapoel Ironi Kiryat Shmona’s victory, which now puts the club just two qualifying rounds away from playing in next season’s Champions League and potentially pairing off against the likes of Barcelona, Manchester United or Bayern Munich, is also a major boost to the working-class town’s morale.

Much of the credit goes to Hapoel Ironi Kiryat Shmona’s owner, Izzy Sheratzky, a Tel Aviv millionaire who made his money from Ituran, a global positioning system that helps track stolen cars.

But for all of Sheratzky’s financial support, Hapoel Ironi Kiryat Shmona is still less well endowed than the big four. This emphasizes the critical role played by head coach Ran Ben-Shimon and the players. And only two – Serbian defender Dusan Matovic and Argentine striker David 0 – are foreigners.

Kiryat Shmona’s rise to fame has helped remind us all of something important. Soccer and other team sports have the potential to teach important lessons about human nature. Soccer can lift morale and bring pride to those who identify with a successful team.

Perhaps Kiryat Shmona’s victory will mark not just an end to the hegemony of the big four, but also the beginning of a new era in Israeli soccer – an era in which players and fans of other teams will cut the violence and hooliganism and emulate the Kiryat Shmona club’s good manners, sportsmanship and soccer skills on and off the field.

Palestinian responsibility

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=264544

The hypocrisy was mind-boggling. The same week that the Palestinian Authority announced the introduction of a new award to honor press freedom, it launched a crackdown on Palestinian journalists to intimidate them and stifle their voices.

On March 25, Youssef Al-Shayeb, a journalist with the Jordan-based Al-Ghad, was detained on order of the PA’s attorney-general after the journalist published an expose of purported corruption in the PA’s diplomatic mission in France. Al-Shayeb’s report, which appeared at the end of January, alleged that the mission’s deputy ambassador, Safwat Ibraghit, forced Palestinian students to spy on Muslim groups in France and relay information to Palestinian and foreign intelligence services.

Al-Shayeb also reported that Palestinian National Fund director Dr. Ramzi Khouri, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al- Maliki and others helped promote Ibraghit despite complaints leveled against him.

Maliki and others in the PA are now suing Al-Shayeb for $6 million.

Three days later, on March 28, Esmat Abdel Khaleq, a woman who posted remarks about PA President Mahmoud Abbas on Facebook, was also detained and is now reportedly being held in solitary confinement. According to the PA attorney-general, Khalik wrote “Down with the traitor Abbas,” and in another comment called the president a “fascist.” She also called for the dismantling of the PA.

Back in January, another journalist, Rami Samara, working for the official Palestinian news service Wafa, was also arrested for a post on Facebook that ridiculed the PA. Other prominent Palestinian journalists who have been arrested include Mamdouh Hamamreh, from Al-Quds TV, and George Canawati, director of Bethlehem 2000 Radio.

Adding to the sheer absurdity of the situation is the fact that both the United States and the European Union, which provide tens of millions of dollars in annual support to the PA, have ignored the brutal use of force and intimidation to shut down a basic freedom. In other words, the PA is cynically using scarce funds provided by cash-strapped American and European tax payers to perpetuate yet another autocratic regime in the Middle East. The US and the EU – apparently having learned nothing from the Arab Spring, which proved the folly of the West’s attempts to prop up dictatorial regimes – choose to remain silent on this blatant infringement of human rights.

Numerous NGOs that claim to champion human rights – but focus most of their time and energy on scrutinizing and lambasting Israel – have so far been silent about the PA’s totalitarian behavior. So have left-wing journalists who jump at the chance to point out Israel’s faults.

For instance, +972 Magazine, the online news blog that never misses a chance to bash Israel for its supposed injustices, has so far completely ignored the PA crackdown. So has Human Rights Watch (although the NGO did publish a scathing report of the harassment of Palestinian journalists last year).

Special praise is in order for Jerusalem Post journalist Khaled Abu Toameh and Haaretz journalist Amira Hass, who have both fearlessly reported on the plight of Al- Shayeb and Samara. Reporters Without Borders also managed to bring itself to criticize the PA for detaining Al- Shayeb, although it failed to mention the other Palestinian journalists.

The PA’s crackdown coincides with a renewed effort on the part of the Palestinian political leadership to adopt increasingly aggressive and unilateral measures against Israel. The PA’s appeal to the UN Human Rights Council – which incidentally has also ignored the crackdown on Palestinian journalists – to set up a “fact-finding mission” to investigate the impact of settlements on a future Palestinian state is one example. Last week’s Global March to Jerusalem and Land Day demonstrations are two more.

If the Palestinians are truly interested in establishing a sovereign state, don’t they want to do it right by making sure that future state’s institutions – the justice system, the police – protect basic human rights like press freedom? And shouldn’t the US, EU, human rights NGOs and proponents of free speech help Palestinians achieve this goal by devoting more of their time and energy to constructive criticism of the PA and less to bashing or pressuring Israel? Until that change takes place, honors such as a Palestinian award for press freedom can be nothing but ironic reminders of the distance that separates the Palestinian people from responsible self-government.

Socioeconomics

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=264392

Barring a major security flare-up – or an air strike on Iran – that will eclipse all other concerns, economic issues are shaping up to be a major focus of citizens’ concerns ahead of next year’s elections.

Just days after trouncing MK Tzipi Livni in the Kadima primary race, MK Shaul Mofaz began making his influence and socioeconomic priorities heard, calling on Kadima MKs to take part in Saturday night’s small Tel Aviv march against the rising cost of living.

Seen as a precursor to massive grassroots protests this coming summer that will attempt to recreate the energy and critical mass of last summer’s demonstrations, Saturday night’s march coincided with yet another hike in gas prices.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, acutely aware of the potential for a populist backlash resulting from such a move – which would immediately translate into higher prices for consumers as both electricity and transportation costs skyrocketed together with gas prices – intervened at the last minute to limit the size of the price hike to just 5 agorot per liter instead of the planned 20 agorot per liter. The haste with which he intervened gave the distinct impression that Netanyahu was nervously caving in to popular pressure, instead of being governed by rational considerations.

Undoubtedly, gas prices are high in Israel. Since January 2009, the price of 95-octane gas climbed from NIS 4.75 per liter to NIS 7.79 per liter. The doubling of crude oil prices accounts for most of the rise. But this still does not explain why a gallon of gas costs $8.16 here and about half that price in the US.

Israelis, like Europeans, pay a high excise tax. In Israel it is NIS 2.96 per liter, 19.1 percent more than three years ago. And we also pay a 16% value-added-tax not just on the gas we buy but also on the excise tax.

The rationale behind the tax is to discourage people from using their cars, thus reducing pollution and the accompanying societal costs caused by pollution. When we drive our cars we cause indirect damage to others in the form of lung cancer, vascular infections and in general a higher propensity for sickness. The state has to step in to provide citizens with compensation in the form of higher health care expenditures. And when sick people miss work, productivity is also negatively affected.

Therefore, policy makers in Europe and in Israel reason, the state has the right to raise fuel taxes to either pay for these added costs or to dissuade drivers from causing them in the first place.

However, unlike countries like Italy, Germany and Norway, in Israel we are also forced to pay an exorbitantly high purchase tax on new cars. According to the Jerusalem Institute of Market Studies, various taxes that we pay when we buy a new car amount to between 113% and 128%, five times higher than most European countries. The high purchase tax on cars actually has a negative effect on pollution since it tends to discourage people from buying new, more fuel efficient and greener cars.

Also, the high purchase tax has created a situation in which Israelis have relatively fewer cars than Europeans – not to mention Americans. If in the US there were 808 cars per 1,000 people in 2009, according to World Bank figures, and in most western European countries there were more than 500, in Israel there were just over 300, about the same as Hungary and Argentina.

But unlike many European countries, Israel has yet to develop an efficient public transportation system, though significant steps in the right direction have been made.

Our politicians are beginning to understand that socioeconomic issues – the price of gas, the price of a new car and efficient public transportation – can decide the next elections. The Iranian nuclear threat and the security challenges of combating Iran’s proxies on our borders – Hezbollah in the North and Hamas in the South – are not going away.

But when single mothers work 12 hour days and still can’t feed their families, when the so-called “middle-class” struggles to maintain a subsistence-level existence, even the potential existential threats presented by Palestinian terrorists, by Kassam and Grad rockets, or by an Islamic Republic with nuclear capability can pale in comparison to the immediate existential threat of failing to make ends meet.

Fighting tax evasion

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=264065

On the occasion of the release of the central bank’s annual report to the government, Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer had many words of praise.

“The Israeli economy is in good – if not excellent – shape,” noted Fischer. And this was in large part thanks to a steady reduction in government expenditures which have led to a low fiscal deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio.

But there were also words of criticism. Employment rates among populations that have traditionally not worked – haredi men and women, Arab women and the uneducated – have been growing. But while the gaps between rich and poor have been shrinking, this trend has been negatively impacted by our taxation system, which has become less progressive than in the past. After deducting taxes – both direct ones such as income tax and indirect ones such as Value Added Tax – the gaps between the rich and the poor have been exacerbated.

Unfortunately, there is a real danger that some might try to use Bank of Israel’s report to stoke a new socioeconomic protest in favor of higher taxes for the rich. However, the report – which focuses on 2011 – is now outdated.

As a result of this summer’s socioeconomic protests, our government established the Trajtenberg Committee which made a number of significant recommendations that have since been passed by the Knesset. For instance, the corporate tax, which has gradually fallen over the past decade from 36% to just 24%, was raised a percentage point to 25% in accordance with the committee’s recommendations, resulting in an additional NIS 700 million in state revenues. However, the government should resist populist pressure to make addition tax hikes, which would push the corporate tax rate here higher than the 2011 average for OECD countries of 25.5%. Caving in to such pressures might convince local businesses to relocate abroad – not unheard of in this era of globalization – resulting in a much larger loss of tax revenues.

The Knesset also passed Trajtenberg Committee recommendations to lower income taxes for the middle class (those with an income from NIS 8,000-14,000 a month) while raising the income tax for those who earn more than NIS 41,000 a month.

Still, indirect taxes remain the most problematic aspect of our tax system. VAT, customs, excise taxes and other indirect taxes provide about half of our tax revenues, compared to just a third on average among OECD countries. Indirect taxes are inherently unfair and regressive since the poor and rich pay the same 16% VAT for basic necessities such as food and clothing.

One of the reasons we rely so much on indirect taxation is because VAT and other types of indirect taxes are relatively easy to collect. In contrast, when it comes to income tax and other direct forms of taxations, there is a notoriously high level of tax evasion.

According to a 2007 World Bank report, Israel’s real economic activity is 23% more than what is reported. This lively black market provides tax-free incomes for thousands of Israelis.

This might explain why the average Israeli household spends more than it earns. Last summer the Central Bureau of Statistics reported that in 2010 the average net income per family was NIS 12,020 a month, while the average expenditure per family was NIS 13,496 a month. It could be that a large percentage of Israeli families maintain steadily growing overdrafts in their banking accounts or run up enormous debt. But it could also be that many of us receive additional income that we choose not to report. On one hand this is good news, since it would imply that Israelis are better off than they let on. But it is also bad news because the state is being robbed of important tax revenues.

Instead of instituting additional tax hikes on the income of the rich or on capital gains and corporate revenues, more effort should be devoted to tax collection and broadening the tax base. Large black markets continue to flourish – particularly in the Arab and haredi sectors – and they need to be eradicated.

Raising taxes on business activity, on capital gains or on the highest salaries might sound fair, but such moves are counterproductive as they tend to lead to a fall in economic growth, relocation of businesses and more aggressive tax sheltering or evasion.

What the government should be doing is using more aggressive methods to enforce the law by tracking down and punishing tax evaders.

Cut gas taxes

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=259797

On Wednesday night at midnight, gasoline prices will rise to record levels. A liter of 95 octane gas will climb about 30 agorot and cost about NIS 8, approximately double the price in the US and about the same level as in Germany, Italy and Norway.

Treasury officials say the rise in gas prices is a direct result of global trends. Should tensions explode between the West and Tehran over the Iranian regime’s push to develop nuclear weapons, say economists, oil supply could be disrupted. Anticipation of a sudden shortage has been driving prices up.

Despite claims by Treasury officials, however, international analysts are actually predicting that oil prices, which have dropped slightly in recent days, will continue to fall in the near future. As Israelis prepare for yet another gas price hike at home, it seems that there is an opposite trend worldwide. A report released recently by Capital Economics predicts that oil prices could fall as much as $10 a barrel.

Other factors that might drive down gas prices include release of emergency crude stock and the perception that Iran will not make good on its threat to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil tankers pass every day.

Though Treasury officials would like you to think otherwise, the price at the pump is only partly connected to global market trends. More than any other factor it is government policy that determines price disparities around the globe from Rome to Los Angeles, from Oslo to Cairo. In Latin American and Middle East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by government-owned companies and local gas prices are kept low as a benefit to citizens.

In contrast, in many European countries and in Israel, gas is heavily taxed.

In addition to the 16 percent value-added tax, we are forced to pay a NIS 2.96 excise tax on every liter of gasoline. The price of a liter of gasoline is further jacked up due to the fact that we pay VAT not just on the gas but also on the excise tax. This redundant taxation – an indirect tax on an indirect tax – adds nearly half a shekel to each liter of gasoline. And this is a regressive tax, since both rich and poor own cars or use public transportation that will also be affected by the price rise.

MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) has drafted a bill – slated to come up for a vote Wednesday in the Knesset – that would do away with this redundant tax. In parallel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked the director-general of the Prime Minister’s office, Harel Locker, a former tax attorney, to look into alternatives that would lower gas prices. And MK Carmel Shama-Cohen (Likud), chairman of the Knesset Economics Committee, has drafted a bill to be presented Wednesday that calls for temporary cuts in VAT when gas prices climb above NIS 6.6 per liter.

But Treasury officials are warning that gas taxes must not be touched. Every 10 agorot tax reduction will result in a state revenue shortfall of NIS 700 million a year, they say. And gas tax revenues are already expected to fall as a result of the higher gas prices that cause people to use their cars less. Besides, according to Doron Cohen, the temporary director-general of the Treasury, the Finance Ministry has already agreed to a NIS 2.5 billion decrease in gas tax revenues as part of the Trajtenberg Committee recommendations.

Cohen was referring to the cancellation of a planned excise tax hike. The hike was recommended by Bank of Israel economists in a 2010 report as a means of reducing pollution by discouraging Israelis from driving too much. Cohen said that instead of cutting gas taxes, which would force the government to cut the budgets of various ministries, citizens should buy more fuel efficient cars and drive less.

We agree that for the sake of pollution reduction and energy conservation, it would be advisable for Israelis to drive less and use more fuel efficient cars.

However, we do not believe that the state should be using taxation to coercively reeducate its citizens.

And if a tax cut results in lower state revenues, so be it; the gas tax should never have been charged in the first place.