Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 21, 2012
Sometimes we need art to distract us from the real world or make one try to gain a bigger picture of who we are and/or might be. Israel, and especially its leaders, has been and no doubt will continue to be critiqued severely in this blog when it deserves to be, but seeing the new film documentary Follow Me: The Yoni Netanyahu Story makes one take a deep breath and look at what a remarkable people Israelis are. The character and extraordinary fiber of Yoni Netanyahu which comes through his letters and the interviewees’ descriptions, makes a person truly proud of one of the remarkable heroes of a very young country. Listening and hearing so many people involved in the 1976 Israeli raid and rescue in Entebbe, many of whom are very much alive and active today, is eerie and awesome. Leaving aside any self-serving comments that might appear or any emotional and personalization of the history, the documentary presents to today’s world a picture of the people and country, in a different time.
The documentary is schmaltzy in parts and pitched too much to Hollywood in its style, but the narrative of the State of Israel comes through even to the most harden of cynics. It also raises desperately painful questions about whether today’s leaders in Israel are as capable to “follow” as were the decision-makers and the rank and file 36 years ago.
Israel today with all her problems and her warts is troubling and painful. Her leaders and politics today make one angry and take pause, but they also give hope to the optimists who believe that it has not come this far in 64 years to lose it all because they failed to learn from history.
---------------------------
This is the 100th posting since Kahntentions began just five months ago. Its form is still evolving but, as you are still reading it and agreeing, getting angry, or deleting it, we are pleased. We promise not to bother marking any more historical moments, but we hope you will continue to stay tuned as we watch time march on.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 18, 2012
On the third day of the Sixth Day War the words “the Temple Mount is in our hands” rang out in Israel and echoed throughout the Jewish world from the voice of then Colonel Motta Gur, commander of the paratroop force that had entered and liberated the Old City of Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans captured the city in 70 C.E. the remnants of the Jewish Temple was in Jewish hands. It was a moment which millions of Jews of all religious stripes and persuasions have never forgotten. The famous photographs of that day are indelibly etched into the memory of those who lived through that period or have absorbed the history; Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, Chief of Staff General Yitzchak Rabin, and Commander of the Central Region General Uzi Narkiss marching into the Old City following the blowing of the shofar by the then Chief Chaplain of the IDF Rabbi Shlomo Goren announcing the liberation of the Western Wall.
This Sunday which is the commemoration of that day on the Jewish calendar (28th of Iyar--June 7, 1967) will mark the 45th anniversary of what has become known as Jerusalem Day. In fact, since June 28, 1967, within weeks of the conclusion of the Six Day War, all of Jerusalem was united and incorporated into one entity. The status of a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty has been one of the absolute non-negotiable issues in all Israeli Governments’ peace discussions with any and all Palestinian leaders. (In fact, however, while in principle it is indeed non-negotiable, in fact many Israeli political leaders and scholars have always suspected that if Israel and the Palestinians could develop an agreement on all the other issues, a modus vivendi could be developed to share or include a shared arrangement over the Old City and East Jerusalem.)
There is a contemporary reality, however, to Jerusalem Day which points to one of the fundamental social problems deep-seated in today’s Israeli society. This day is commemorated actively only by the religious Zionist community and the settler movement. Jerusalem and all the political and demographic issues which have developed over construction and ownership of property in East Jerusalem have clearly soured the excitement about Jerusalem which thrives so deeply in the minds and thoughts of the modern, religious, Orthodox Jews. Secular Jews and the ultra-Orthodox communities—for very different reasons—do not have the same attachment and expressive feeling about Jerusalem; they make no effort to celebrate this day.
For the haredi community their non-celebration of the day is connected to their religious/political position vis-à-vis the very creation of State, absent the advent of Messianic times. For the secular Jews, however, their alienation about celebrating this day, beyond genuine serious political reservations which many of them have, is a function of a very troubling education system. The education today in the secular schools fails to provide the non-religious communities with a proper course of study in Jewish history. While the secular founders of the State knew and even imbibed Judaism and Jewish history--some in Europe and many in their homes in Palestine and then Israel—most of today’s secular leaders, to say nothing of their children, have a very limited and transitory knowledge of Jewish history. The emotional and religious attachment which their forbearers held for Jerusalem is absent, at least in part because the education system did not instill it in them and their parents and families did not foster it.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 16, 2012
The explosion of news stories last week as the issue of same sex marriages entered the presidential debate season was expected and dramatic. The inches of copy and air time devoted to this issue was appalling. Only in the U.S. can a matter which should be left to personal as well as religious preference become a major election year football. Like abortion rights and the right to die U.S. policy makers actually believe that these moral and ethical issues need to continue to be part of the public policy agenda.
This “firestorm” needs to be juxtaposed with the discussions developing over France’s new President, Francois Hollande, and his non-marital relationship with France’s new first lady, Valerie Trierweiler. Unlike the U.S., as was the case with former French President Francois Mitterand, for the French people the politics of the nation is not affected by the personal life of a President.
The U.S. continues to have as well, a selective choice over which moral and social norms ought to be institutionalized into public policy and which ones can be ignored. Fundamentalists can attack abortion rights and same sex marriage but children born out of wedlock or religious intolerance of Mormons, among others, is acceptable. Religions articulate the tenets of their belief, but when it becomes part of evaluating a candidate’s qualifications for office or a rationale for public policy it seems that the French and most Europeans seem to understand the issue more clearly.
As the New York Times reported of Hollande and Trierweiler, their major political problem will be how they will deal with a state visit to Saudi Arabia where unmarried cohabitation is not accepted. As was the case with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, for the French if it was established that the woman whom he engaged in his hotel was not raped but a willing partner, then the entire episode was irrelevant to Strauss-Kahn’s qualifications.
In America, on the other hand, one of the major parties orchestrated an impeachment trial of a president based on alleged legal offenses while in office, when in actuality he was being attacked by self-righteous legislators--all of whom themselves are hardly squeaky clean—for having intimate relations with a consenting White House intern; embarrassing, yes, but not impeachable.
All of which suggests that it is past time where the various churches are determining factors in public policy. They need to influence their parishioners and believers to do what they believe is right, but not that the states or the federal government should mandate moral and ethical behavior. The same sex marriage debate is the abortion debate of 2012.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 15, 2012
In this morning’s New York Times, David Brooks delivered a most insightful picture of the state of the 2012 presidential campaign and the status of the Obama-Romney race. He concluded basically that Romney should be ahead but Obama is still more well liked. Obama remains the preferred candidate despite the extent to which the public clearly is dissatisfied with him as a President.
The missing explanation appears to be that Obama is ahead in likeability because Romney is viewed as an elitist and someone who cannot identify with average people. While Obama today is also clearly a member of the elite, his entire life story makes it very easy for him to relate to average people. Romney cannot help himself and keeps running into this problem whether it is the number of homes, cars, income, food, etc.
America has had very affluent presidents and candidates before, but they were not so awkward, and uncomfortable relating to the people as is Romney. F.D.R. despite his extensive family wealth was admired because of his battle with polio; John Kennedy, because of his Catholicism, his youthfulness, and his rolled-up shirt sleeves; John Kerry because he was an heroic, Viet-Nam veteran; and Bush 43 because he was everything but the elitist his father was. Bush senior, in fact, had the same problem in 1992 campaigning from his privileged boat(s) in Kennebunkport as does Romney.
The polls cited do not appear to have tested this factor, but Romney’s people need to address it fast, before the Obama campaign ads probably do it for them. Unless Romney soon stops falling on his own words and actions he will not succeed in overcoming this albatross. It is not his wealth or his success; it is that he appears unable to relate to the American voters.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 14, 2012
Believe it or not the on-going confrontation between the Israeli Government and the Israeli Courts makes some of the American public’s frustration with the U.S. Supreme Court seem like child’s play. In fact in recent times with the exception perhaps of Bush vs. Gore in 2000, America and its political leaders still maintain a healthy respect for the Court. While this conceivably might explode in a few weeks after the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the Affordable HealthCare Act’s, it bears no resemblance to the constant confrontation over the past several years between the Israeli Court and the country’s political leaders.
Most of the political challenges from the Government to the decisions of the High Court have come over the issues of settlement policy or religion. The newly expanded Netanyahu led coalition faces maybe at least two major confrontations with the Court in the next three months, if it does not follow the recent decisions of the Court. While Mofaz and the Kadima Party publically may have suggested that they were ready to engage these issues, it is not at all clear if they wanted to be part of what will inevitably give the Government a political black eye no matter how these fights conclude.
The easier of the two issues is replacing the Tal law on military or national service for the ultra-Orthodox, haredim, which the Court has ordered to be in place by August 1. Deferments for haredi men from performing national service or military service was deemed unconstitutional by the Court, and the State was ordered to construct a more appropriate and equitable arrangement for equal service. Kadima has championed the need for such a change and will undoubtedly now join Yisrael Beitanu (the party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman) to try to push the Government to do what it has avoided to enact to date as it sought not to avoid having the haredim bolt from the coalition. With the expanded Government now in place, there is a distinct possibility that this is precisely what will happen as most of the Israeli public wants action as well. It is not clear if the High Court will tolerate any further deferral of the Tal law revision which has already repeatedly made the High Court look either impotent and/or foolish.
The settlement issue truly poses the potential of a mini-civil war in Israel if the Government moves to evacuate the 30 families in Ulpana from five buildings which were constructed on private Palestinian property on the outskirts of the settlement of Beit El. The Court has ordered action be taken by July 1. If, however, the Knesset now passes legislation to permit Ulpana to remain, it will mean that ultimately all illegal settlements will become legal by statute.
Assuming the Court cannot develop a rationale to circumvent such action by the Knesset, the Court truly will have been marginalized. Everything done will have been legal, but the politicians will have made the Courts look ridiculous. At the same time there likely will also be a broad based Palestinian and international condemnation against the farce being made by the Israeli Government of the role of an independent judiciary; to say nothing of Israel’s commitment to a peace process.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 14, 2012
Believe it or not the on-going confrontation between the Israeli Government and the Israeli Courts makes some of the American public’s frustration with the U.S. Supreme Court seem like child’s play. In fact in recent times with the exception perhaps of Bush vs. Gore in 2000, America and its political leaders still maintain a healthy respect for the Court. While this conceivably might explode in a few weeks after the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the Affordable HealthCare Act’s, it bears no resemblance to the constant confrontation over the past several years between the Israeli Court and the country’s political leaders.
Most of the political challenges from the Government to the decisions of the High Court have come over the issues of settlement policy or religion. The newly expanded Netanyahu led coalition faces maybe at least two major confrontations with the Court in the next three months, if it does not follow the recent decisions of the Court. While Mofaz and the Kadima Party publically may have suggested that they were ready to engage these issues, it is not at all clear if they wanted to be part of what will inevitably give the Government a political black eye no matter how these fights conclude.
The easier of the two issues is replacing the Tal law on military or national service for the ultra-Orthodox, haredim, which the Court has ordered to be in place by August 1. Deferments for haredi men from performing national service or military service was deemed unconstitutional by the Court, and the State was ordered to construct a more appropriate and equitable arrangement for equal service. Kadima has championed the need for such a change and will undoubtedly now join Yisrael Beitanu (the party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman) to try to push the Government to do what it has avoided to enact to date as it sought not to avoid having the haredim bolt from the coalition. With the expanded Government now in place, there is a distinct possibility that this is precisely what will happen as most of the Israeli public wants action as well. It is not clear if the High Court will tolerate any further deferral of the Tal law revision which has already repeatedly made the High Court look either impotent and/or foolish.
The settlement issue truly poses the potential of a mini-civil war in Israel if the Government moves to evacuate the 30 families in Ulpana from five buildings which were constructed on private Palestinian property on the outskirts of the settlement of Beit El. The Court has ordered action be taken by July 1. If, however, the Knesset now passes legislation to permit Ulpana to remain, it will mean that ultimately all illegal settlements will become legal by statute.
Assuming the Court cannot develop a rationale to circumvent such action by the Knesset, the Court truly will have been marginalized. Everything done will have been legal, but the politicians will have made the Courts look ridiculous. At the same time there likely will also be a broad based Palestinian and international condemnation against the farce being made by the Israeli Government of the role of an independent judiciary; to say nothing of Israel’s commitment to a peace process.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 14, 2012
Believe it or not the on-going confrontation between the Israeli Government and the Israeli Courts makes some of the American public’s frustration with the U.S. Supreme Court seem like child’s play. In fact in recent times with the exception perhaps of Bush vs. Gore in 2000, America and its political leaders still maintain a healthy respect for the Court. While this conceivably might explode in a few weeks after the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the Affordable HealthCare Act’s, it bears no resemblance to the constant confrontation over the past several years between the Israeli Court and the country’s political leaders.
Most of the political challenges from the Government to the decisions of the High Court have come over the issues of settlement policy or religion. The newly expanded Netanyahu led coalition faces maybe at least two major confrontations with the Court in the next three months, if it does not follow the recent decisions of the Court. While Mofaz and the Kadima Party publically may have suggested that they were ready to engage these issues, it is not at all clear if they wanted to be part of what will inevitably give the Government a political black eye no matter how these fights conclude.
The easier of the two issues is replacing the Tal law on military or national service for the ultra-Orthodox, haredim, which the Court has ordered to be in place by August 1. Deferments for haredi men from performing national service or military service was deemed unconstitutional by the Court, and the State was ordered to construct a more appropriate and equitable arrangement for equal service. Kadima has championed the need for such a change and will undoubtedly now join Yisrael Beitanu (the party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman) to try to push the Government to do what it has avoided to enact to date as it sought not to avoid having the haredim bolt from the coalition. With the expanded Government now in place, there is a distinct possibility that this is precisely what will happen as most of the Israeli public wants action as well. It is not clear if the High Court will tolerate any further deferral of the Tal law revision which has already repeatedly made the High Court look either impotent and/or foolish.
The settlement issue truly poses the potential of a mini-civil war in Israel if the Government moves to evacuate the 30 families in Ulpana from five buildings which were constructed on private Palestinian property on the outskirts of the settlement of Beit El. The Court has ordered action be taken by July 1. If, however, the Knesset now passes legislation to permit Ulpana to remain, it will mean that ultimately all illegal settlements will become legal by statute.
Assuming the Court cannot develop a rationale to circumvent such action by the Knesset, the Court truly will have been marginalized. Everything done will have been legal, but the politicians will have made the Courts look ridiculous. At the same time there likely will also be a broad based Palestinian and international condemnation against the farce being made by the Israeli Government of the role of an independent judiciary; to say nothing of Israel’s commitment to a peace process.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 11, 2012
The Obama announcement supporting same sex marriage and the Washington Post revelations about Romney’s anti-gay bullying behavior in his Detroit prep school made important and interesting news on their own merits, but perhaps in the long run they are equally interesting considering the tone and the management of this year’s campaign season.
For the Obama campaign and for the President himself, lack of control is unacceptable. In addition, timing in a campaign is everything. In this instance the White House was forced by the Vice-President’s annoucement last weekend on Meet the Press of Biden’s support for same sex marriage. This apparently was infuriating to the President because Biden jumped the gun on the issue and it violated the Obama campaign management rules. Presumably, the Administration wanted to control when the President would announce his support of same sex marriages—presumably prior to the convention platform committee meetings this summer. What the Vice President did through his preemption last weekend was to remove the issue from the President as well as the campaign’s control.
Since the early days of the Obama Administration it appears Biden generally has controlled himself with fewer Biden mis-speaks than most of Washington ever had anticipated. The campaign learned now that they need to rapidly arrange for better Biden “management” or else next time they may not be able to wiggle out as well as they have this time.
For Mitt Romney the story about his actions at Cranbook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, clearly presents some of the uglier stories about teenage, anti-gay bullying, but what was curious to observe was how the presumptive Republican nominee sought to dance out of these revelations. Apologizing for his actions and then wanting to move on; not addressing the issue.
As the Romney campaign looks at the fall ad campaign, debates, jabbing, and counter-punching, there is a signal here of some potentially very rough sledding ahead. The Romney staff knows that their candidate has a long record of open support on an array of issues which do not sit well with his GOP base, beyond the issue of same sex marriage or those attacks already thrown at him during the Republican primary. They represent policies and statements that largely represent how Romney campaigned, won, and governed Massachusetts.
His staff knows that Romney will need to be prepared to respond to this record during the fall campaign—if not sooner. They also recognize that while he said he would address his position further on gay rights during the campaign, it was the style, atmospherics, and casualness of Romney’s response to the issue this week which ought to concern the campaign.
Rest assured that the Obama machine will make certain that Romney’s prior record will be seen shortly, in stark contrast and distinct from his current statements. Romney’s entire campaign, beyond his vice-presidential selection, may well come down to whether he can dispel the flip-flopping image that these contrasting pictures present both to independent voters on one side and his core voters and the Tea Partiers on the other.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 9, 2012
The defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the primary yesterday, sent signals that the traditional American two party system indeed may have entered a new and distressing phase. Hopefully, the American people will not let it happen, but Lugar’s loss yesterday by a staggering 22% seems to suggest otherwise. The six term Indiana senator did not merely come to the end of his political career—as all 81 year old mares eventually do—but he was defeated by an exceedingly well financed Tea Party onslaught against him. .
Lugar’s career could not have lasted forever. The other Republican moderate who faced a similar challenge, Olympia Snowe, retired rather than endure the embarrassment of being defeated after an equally fine legislative career. It is, however, the manner of how Lugar went down that ought to send shudders through the hearts and minds of Democrats as well as Republicans.
As was reiterated during last night’s celebrations, Lugar was defeated not because he took social and economic positions which were not conservative enough for today’s Republican Party. His opponent, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, --even in victory—made it clear that Lugar lost because he was too willing to compromise in the Senate, too willing to work with other Senators who disagreed with him, too willing to work across the aisle with Democrats (perish the thought.) In other words, Lugar was defeated because he understood that the role of being a Senator (a legislator) was to legislate and not to obstruct; to participate in the governing process; and to facilitate its ability to function, not to disrupt and block it.
Democrats need to be very careful themselves how they respond now to the implications of the Lugar defeat. Democrats need to avoid letting the Tea Party rupture of the Republican Party lead to a similar polarizing effort within the Democratic Party. If the play their cards right in Indiana, they might even be able to conceivably takeover Lugar’s Senate seat in November, an hysterical result after all this Republican effort.
If the Democrats move too much to the left now, however, they too ultimately will bear responsibility for moving the Government into an ungovernable condition. In addition, party politics could then evolve into a condition which has historically failed in this country; having two ideologically extreme parties and not two centrist parties. Not since the days of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists have there been ideological based political parties; even not during the ante-bellum period. Such action could challenge and even destroy the uniqueness of the American two party system.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
May 8, 2012
The sudden turn overnight in Israeli politics presented political analysts and journalists with a field day of speculation. Netanyahu’s decision to broaden the governing coalition into a Government of national unity; to not call the general elections he was about to announce; and to agree to address revision of the Tal Law, election reform, and the peace process constitute a slap at some of the current members of what is now a huge coalition of 94 members out of a 120 member Knesset. At the same time, for Shaul Mofaz it is an absurd turnaround following his Kadima victory after which he had told an Haaretz interview that he would never join the Netanyahu Government, despite his extremely close personal relationship with the entire family.
Mofaz, despite his military record, has been seen as a political opportunist. Yes, the Tal Law will be changed, but the Court had already ordered action by August 1; there will be some discussion with the Palestinians for which he may well be the point person to appease the U.S. and the Quartet but they are unlikely to move anywhere until after the U.S. elections in November and the Iran picture gains greater clarity and/or finality. As for electoral reform—which Israel desperately needs—there may well be some tinkering with list percentages and the primary systems or an electoral study commission established, but single member districts or party responsibility or major overhaul are exceedingly unlikely. Mofaz is motivated in all likelihood by an opportunistic sense of the moment to permit him time to build himself up and Kadima prior to the October 2013 elections.
While Bibi knows all this full well, bringing in Mofaz gives the Prime Minister political cover in almost all segments of the electorate where he may be soft. It also permits him to demonstrate to Washington that he is more open and sensitive to differing views; with more than three-quarters of the Knesset now in the Government. He can show that he brought in another former Chief of Staff and Defense Minister who himself was born in Iran and has not supported the more hawkish views advocated to date by the current coalition. Within the security cabinet, moreover, Bibi now has a possible foil for Barak and a force to quiet the recent array of former military and intelligence critics who have been attacking the Netanyahu Government’s policy direction on Iran.
The real losers are the other coalition members who now will either have to live with the centrist Kadima Party or bolt. Lieberman and his Yisrael Beitanu Party will probably stay the course, while the religious parties may leave over the Tal Law, since they can oppose it better outside the coalition and obstruct implementation more effectively. Meanwhile, the Labor Party and its new leader, Shelley Yachimovich, will be literally alone in the wilderness; just when they believed that new elections in September might boost them back to being a more significant opposition party.
There is one final dimension to these machinations. If Bibi now turns statesman and uses Kadima to seriously engage the Palestinians it would be huge, and would clearly challenge his older coalition partners especially the pro-settlement forces. (If there is such a turnaround by Netanyahu in the cards it will be readily evident this summer as the Government is under court orders to commence the dismantling of illegal settlements; something which Netanyahu of late has been seeking ways to circumvent.)
« Older Posts
BACK TO TOP
Follow NJJN
E-Newsletter Signup