Another Article on the Rabid Misconduct of Israeli Government Officials... As if there's anything else to talk about

The article at left, appearing in the Thursday, February 2, 2007 New York Times informs on the conviction of former Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon on charges of forcibly kissing a female soldier. Ramon stepped down from his position last August, when the charges against him arose.
In light of this conviction, which came January 31, many speculate that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will re-shuffle his cabinet, after the country's government has been brought down so much by criticism of its handling this summer's war with Lebanon, and the scandal that has surrounded numerous government officials within the Knesset.
President Moshe Katsav (whose office is largely ceremonial) is enduring the beginning of a three-month suspension while facing charges of rape, sexual assault and more.
Prior to the passing of a sexual harassment law in 1998, these charges were extremely rare in Israel's "macho culture," the article notes. Since then, however, there have been numerous such charges brought against Israeli officials.
Ramon, a 56 year old divorcee, was charged with kissing a 21 year old female soldier at a government office on July 12, the day the war between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel began. Ramon claims the two were flirting and the kiss was consensual, however the soldier claims otherwise, and the three judges assigned to Ramon's case did not take kindly to his testimony, siding with the soldier.
Ramon's sentencing hearing is in about three weeks, with a maximum sentence of three years, but Ramon plans to appeal, and many speculators say it is unlikely he will do any time.

In my opinion, the Israeli officials coming under fire are no worse or better than those in power in the United States, or any other country. Yes, we put these people in office, and expect them to exemplify our ideals and serve as upright citizens, but the fact of the matter is, people are people. Does that excuse the alleged actions of Ramon, Katsav, Olmert, Clinton, and whoever else has come under fire for various misconducts? ABSOLUTELY NOT. My point is that had Joe Shmoe, a regular citizen not in the public eye, having his every action scrutinized, forcibly kissed a woman 35 years younger than him, the world would do no more than shake a finger at him and all would be forgotten by the next day. Politicians RUN for their jobs. They know what they are getting themselves into, and they know the scrutiny they are putting themselves under, so the question I am left with is, knowing all of this, why do they still do it?
The part that concerns me even more though, is why is this petty garbage actually news? The New York Times has had a regular series of articles detailing the corruption of Israeli officials, yet has made little to no mention of other events going on in the country-- and we all know there is always something going on over there. A brief perusal of today's headlines in Haaretz (a leading Israeli newspaper, published in Hebrew and English online at www.haaretz.com ) looks like this:
-"Quartet of Middle East Peace Brokers begins Meeting in US"
-"IDF Soldiers Wound Palestinian near Checkpoint in West Bank"
-"PMO: Peretz has no Authority to choose Missile Defense System"
-"Egyptians blame Hamas as Ceasefire Fails"
So Mr. New York Times, Mr. American News Media, where are these stories? Why do we only see news pertaining to the corruption of those who run the State of Israel, and no real, viable, important news pertaining to this controversial state? We get in-depth reports on the war in Iraq every day, we hear about the 500+ illegitimate candidates vying for the White House, we hear about Nancy Pelosi's fashion choices, and even about TV celebrities calling other TV celebrities "faggots". Why is this news less important, so much so, in fact, that the only coverage we get is on piddly misconducts by government officials that have become so astronomically blown out of proportion that the important issues get, literally, lost in translation?

Israeli President Refuses to Step Down--The Party's Over but Katsav is Still Dancing

The article at left, appearing in the Thursday, January 25, 2007 edition of The New York Times, speaks about the current turmoil within the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. on Jan 24 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for the resignation of President Moshe Katsav, after the announcement that he was to be indicted on criminal charges for rape, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, breach of trust, fraud and sexual harassment.
Last Wednesday, at which point calls for his resignation were already being made, Katsav asked for a leave of absence, so as to deal with the numerous accusations springing up against him. A committee will vote to approve or deny Katsav's request for leave, but with a huge portion of parliament calling for his resignation, it is hard to call what their decision will be. The committee may even decide to begin the impeachment process, although Katsav's term is up in July.
Katsav strongly denied the accusations, which go back to 1998 when he was Israel's minister of tourism, also saying that if indicted by attorney general Menachem Mazuz (which seems highly likely), he will resign.
Katsav, an Iranian born Sephardic Jew (Jews who trace their ancestry to Spain and the Iberian Peninsula), claims that the charges have sprung up as part of a plot against him started by Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who trace their ancestry to Europe), who make up most of Israel's governmental elite.
Katsav's televised speech was one full of "anger, accusation and self-pity, remind[ing] some of Richard M. Nixon's 'Checkers' speech of 1952," the article says.

In my opinion, this situation has reached a point of ridiculousness. Katsav should just resign and be done with it. First of all, the post of President in Israeli government is mostly ceremonial anyway, and it is petty of Katsav to drag this issue out. Secondly, other Israeli officials have respectfully resigned their posts for far lesser accusations rather than let themselves become a public and international spectacle. For example, in 2000, then President Ezer Weizman resigned following allegations that he received half a million dollars as a gift from a wealthy Frenchman--a far lesser alleged crime than rape, fraud, obstruction of justice and the rest of the charges Katsav faces. Even if the charges are, as Katsav claims, false, he should step down and take the time to properly clear his name without taking up the time and resources of the Knesset, and causing a national and international tabloid fanfare. His yelling on TV, refusal to take questions from the press, and overall defensive and angry attitude are completely inappropriate. This is the behavior we have come to expect from whiny Hollywood celebrities--not the president of Israel.... and now at least the celebs are checking themselves into rehab.

Reading Response Paper # 1

Reading Response Paper #1:Should we be concerned about what happens to the countries/individuals of the “unflat” or “half-flat” world? If not, why? If so, what should be done by NGOs? Corporations? Private citizens?

Since the end of the first World War, until the start of what Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of The World is Flat, calls Globalization 3.0, the United States has held itself in high esteem as the self-proclaimed (and, for the most part, rightly so) strongest nation in the world. Americans have become quite comfortable with this status, and have, in my opinion, begun slacking off, allowing many jobs to be exported, or outsourced, to other countries where the labor can be done at cheaper rates with the same, or sometimes even better, standards of quality. These jobs, going mostly to India, China and Japan, have lead to these countries’ rise on the global economic horizon, causing them to rapidly catch up to the United States. This comfortable security Americans have felt for generations is now proving dangerous, with far fewer American college students seeking degrees in the fields of Math and Science, and increased numbers seeking these degrees in other countries. The flattening of countries such as India, China and Japan has contributed to a global marketplace and the leveling of the global playing field.We know the challenge this poses to the United States, but what threat does the flattening of previously under-developed countries pose to the rest of the not (yet) flat world? What role will these countries play in a global economy, and how will globalization affect them? Why is it our job to care?First of all, it is, without doubt, the responsibility of flat countries to take an interest in the welfare of the non-flat world. Not only do the events and situations in non-developed countries affect the dealings of those living and doing business in a non-developed world, but as modernized peoples who appreciate and love our rights and freedoms, it is our duty to care about those who do not have those rights and freedoms, and do the most we can to extend those luxuries to them. We possess the ability to help these people, whether they suffer under war, genocide, disease, poverty or any other unfavorable circumstance, so why shouldn’t we? Yes, if we help to flatten these countries it will create more competition for us in the newly flat modern world, but it would be foolish of us not to realize that as globalization reaches further and further, and more of the world catches up to the standards we Americans have put on a pedestal since the end of World War I, the welfare of the global economy will become just as important, if not more important, than personal, or national economic progress, as individuals find their niches in the new global market place. By helping these non-flat and partially flat countries to globalize, giving them the potential to grow, develop and flatten, too, we create competition for ourselves, but this risk is far outweighed by the potential contribution these countries could make toward a global economy. The well being of all humanity should be at the forefront of our goals as citizens of a flat world. As Friedman says in The World is Flat, each region of the world has its own strengths and weaknesses. It is our job as a stronger region to aid other regions in developing their strengths by overcoming their weaknesses. A huge part of this is education; especially in America, where education in the fields of math and science has decreased. In general, however, education is a leading element that will aid in broad globalization. Private citizens, Non-Government Organizations and Governments alike should contribute to all of this through actions rather than blindly throwing money at countries who need to be shown the way with infrastructures such as education reform, encouraging a capitalistic free-market economy, privatizing certain state-run facilities, and regulating the environment in which much of today’s business is run to allow for individual citizens, small corporations and businesses, as well as big business to all exist on an even playing field. It is the duty of the flat world to not only help the non-flat world, but also to ensure that it is doing so in a way that is actually beneficial in the long run.

(Sorry for the late post, as I said when I emailed you the paper, Blogger was down when I went to post the assignment. Thanks for your understanding! -Samantha)

End of Israeli-Syrian Silence in Sight? Temperatures set to rise over Golan Heights.

In a January 20, 2007 article, The Economist highlights the precarious situation between Israel and Syria, and the possibility of peace talks taking place in the near future. Some optimists venture far enough to say that if Israel negotiates peace with Syria, "it could be the key to peace in the whole Middle East," according to the article.
This week, Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper, broke the news of secret dealings between Syrians and Israelis for the past two years, producing the outline of a possible peace deal between the two nations, who, to put it lightly, are not on speaking terms.
It has been said that this secret communicative channel developed after Israelis refused an offer for talks in 2004. The talks took place between former ambassador Alon Liel and Ibrahim Suleiman, a citizen of Syria residing in Washington, DC., who is presumably close with Syrian President Bashir Assad. The two held eight meetings, mediated by a Swiss diplomat. The plan calls for the return of all of the Golan Heights to Syria, making it a demilitarised national park, into which Israelis can enter without obtaining visa. Israel's water supply would be safeguarded, and both countries would have zones of reduced military presence along their borders. The plan fails to address some major issues, such as the Syrian refugees who were expelled from the Golan, or the pending status of the Israelis currently living there, but it is definitely progress.
This news has proved controversial, causing people to consider whether or not a real peace deal could be around the corner. The major topic of contention between the two countries, the Golan Heights, is a region in the northern part of the country which Israel took from Syria in the '67 war. The nations talked throughout the '90s, but in 2000 Israel, the only non-Arab democratic state in the Middle East, having a landmass smaller than the state of New Jersey, refused to cede back a "ten-metre-wide strip of the Golan Heights bordering the Sea of Galilee, to guarantee Israel's control of the source of 40% of its fresh water. " This refusal marked the cessation of talks between then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Syrian President Hafez Assad, who died shortly after. Assad was succeeded by his son Bashar. The countries did not exchange discourse, largely at the will of the Israelis, until earlier this month when top Syrian legal adviser Riad Daoudi said that his country was now ready for talks, with a quote from a Syrian delegate saying the Syrians are ready to negotiate without preconditions and that they will "come to the table with all that we are and all that we have, including our relationships", which could elude to ties to Hezbollah, Iran and Hamaas.
Current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and his predecessor, Ariel Sharon have repeatedly shot down any advances Syria has tried to make toward them, but the current Israeli parliament is divided on the issue. Those in favor argue that the possible benefits outweigh the risks of dealing with Syria, while skeptics say Bashar Assad is only pretending to want a peace deal as an attempt to gain American support.
In the aftermath of this summer's battles with Hezbollah, and Lebanon's sloth-like recovery from the damage, Israel may soon be engaged in another battle with Lebanon, which would push them even further from any Palestinian peace agreement that may or may not be in the makings, causing some to see Syrian peace talks as the best, if not only, alternative to more military action.
Both Israeli and Syrian governments have issued "strong denials" of their knowledge of these proceedings, but there are reports that Syrian officials had some indirect involvement. Olmert runs the huge risk of "being eaten alive by hardliners in his increasingly fragile coalition if he were seen to entertain the idea" of negotiations with Syria. There is no clear answer as to how this story was leaked, or as to how the politics of the proposed deal would work themselves out, especially with an Israeli people so opposed to negotiations with Syria.

My personal opinion, having spent 10 days in Israel over winter break, visiting the Golan Heights, coming a little too close for comfort to the Syrian border (after getting lost on a hike through the mountains of the Upper Galilee), and learning firsthand from Israeli citizens and soldiers about this disputed region , is that perhaps it would be beneficial for Israel to stop turning a deaf ear to Syria's requests, and to possibly come to the table and draw up plans for peace agreements. I am, however, extremely wary of the degree to which Syria should be trusted or considered an ally by any means. Driving through the Golan Heights today, there is very little to be seen apart from mine fields that remain active, due to Syria's refusal to turn over the maps of them, and abandoned Israeli settlements. Yes, the natural beauty and general quietness of the area still attract a good number of tourists and vacationers, Israeli and foreign alike, but the overall existence of the area has become one of resentment that can be sensed in the Israeli attitude toward Syria. Much of the vastness of the Golan Heights serves as a training site for the Israeli Defense Forces, and off-road jeeps take tourists through cleared paths in the minefields to educate them on the situation, and allow them to overlook the borders with Syria and Lebanon, but overall, the quietness of this land comes from a bitter silence between Syrians and Israelis, both of whom feel an attachment to it. I also feel that it is in Israel's best interest to keep this land, as it offers them a physical wall of protection against military attack, separating Israel's cities and industry from Syria and, in parts, Lebanon. While negotiations may be beneficial in that they will break the long silence between the two countries' governments, I see them being long and drawn out, and not reaching an end until one of the two countries accepts a deal vastly different from the ideal.

The Economist "Why Can't They Just Make Peace? Israel and Syria" 20 January, 2007

Rice Sets Table for Peace Talks, Bringing Baggage in the form of US Agenda

The article at left, appearing in the Friday, January 19, 2007 edition of USA Today speaks of efforts of US and other international officials to mediate peace between Israelis and Palestinians. US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who just recently visited Britain and the Middle East, plans to return to the region next month to begin peace talks with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Fatah Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
It has been commented that both of these leaders are much weaker than their predecessors (Ariel Sharon of Israel and Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority), which could create difficulties in peace talks, but, however, there is a much greater general willingness among Israelis to cede land to form a Palestinian nation. Olmert is under heavy criticism for his handling of this summer's conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, and with the recent resignation of Israel's Military Commander, Olmert has only a 14% approval rating from his citizens, not to mention the shadow being cast over him by the investigation into his possible foul play in the sale of Israel's Bank Leumi and other actions taken by Olmert during his term as Israel's finance minister. At the same time, Abbas faces pressures from his people, who have shown greater support for the Palestinian Hamaas Party, deemed a terrorist organization by the US, Israel and the European Union, which clashes with Abbas' Fatah party agenda.
In the past, peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have gone off with varied degrees of success, but it seems as though difficulties at this time may arise from a separation of interests between the people of these countries and their governments, as well as a lack of support for government leaders on both sides.
A main goal of Rice's trip to the Middle East was to bolster Arab support of the US position in Iraq, which, according to the USA Today article, she was able to do with only a few lingering doubts. A main concern of both Sunni and Shiite Arab leaders was the threat of a crackdown on Shiite militias throughout the Arab world and the treatment of Sunnis and Shiites living together under sectarian governments. This concern arises, from a good degree, out of a comment made by Rice last week to the Senate Foreign Relations committee saying that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was on "borrowed time", a comment al-Maliki fears will "boost the morale of terrorist efforts." Rice, in a weak response to the biasing statement, blamed it on the translation and tried to rephrase her slip up and cover herself saying that she meant to express the sentiment that "both sides want the same thing."
Looking ahead to these future talks, it is somewhat troubling to think that the main US goal in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is to gain support for the US efforts in Iraq. Regardless of any personal position on the situation in Iraq, I feel that the Iraq conflict and Israeli-Palestinian peace talks should be treated as two entirely separate entities, both of which require careful and attentive handling, but which should not be inter-related for the benefit of the United States. With the bloody and brutal history of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and the current circumstances casting shadow over the upcoming peace talks, it is unwise of Rice to come to the table with a US agenda, when she should be sitting down to focus solely on the precarious relationship between these two warring countries.

Knesset's Internal Pressures Climb After Military Chief's Resignation

The article at left, appearing in the Thursday, January 18, 2007 edition of USA Today highlights some of the internal problems Israel is facing in the wake of this summer's military failure and the very recent resignation of the country's military chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, already weakened by accusations of foul play in the privatization of Bank Leumi, Israel's second largest bank, in 2005 as the country's finance minister, as well as calls from numerous colleagues to step down, regretted Halutz's resignation.
Hamas leaders have picked up on the stress within the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) since this summer's conflct with Lebanon and see this "Zionist weakness" as a possible opportunity to gain American support, as well as an opportunity "to continue resistance and jihad," or in other words, the string of violence and contention that has defined the Palestinian/Israeli relationship through the generations.
The commission looking into this summer's conflict is expected to release a preliminary report within the coming weeks, but Halutz seemed to have no interest in sticking around to see the findings, and handed in his resignation earlier this week, pushing the pressure further onto the shoulders of Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz. According to Alex Fishman of the Yedioth Ahronoth daily, no Israeli chief of staff has ever stepped down of his own free will because of a military failure. Noting the stubborn disposition Israelis have come to be known for, this may very well be the case in the current situation, with approval of Olmert and his administration currently dropping among his colleagues.