About that Israeli hash...

The first prime minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion stated that "When Israel has prostitutes and thieves, [Israel will] be a state just like any other" (Rosenthal, 383). He should have also mentioned drugs since every state seems to have its own drug culture. Israel has become a state like many others in that the youth are engaged in smoking hashish and popping ecstasy pills.

Just like most countries, Israel too holds a policy of drug prohibition. Possession of ecstasy for example can land you in jail for twenty years (Rosenthal, 394). There is however a sort of prioritization for law enforcement who generally target dealers over users and even then, only the larger ones. Still, this creates a black market effect allowing those involved in the drug trade to make huge profits in exchange for the increased risks. One group that is profiting heavily is Hezbollah.

Islam prohibits the use of drugs and considers wealth created through it's sale as "haram" or "forbidden." With that in mind, the Islamist group Hezbollah seems to be open to selling hashish in Israel in exchange for money, weapons and intelligence. I suppose anything goes when it comes to assisting their fight against what many Islamists consider the "Small Satan" (Rosenthal, 393).

In order to get what you want in an exchange--even in the black market--you always give something up. The Christian Science Monitor mentions a lieutenant colonel, who lost his eye in a Hezbollah bomb during the 1990's, was caught involved with selling intelligence for hash and heroin to them. In a way, some of the druggies who say that marijuana (which hashish is derived from) will solve all conflicts may have a point in that here we see enemies working together for drugs, though I would suggest otherwise.

I will say that it may be in Israel's best interests to relax their drug policy. The benefits of the drug trade in the existing environment to groups like Hezbollah is clear and very dangerous. Stop The Drug War, a website run by the strongly drug legalization think tank The Drug Reform Coordination Network, reported in 2006 of an attempt by some Israeli drug users to boycott hash because of this very problem. However, they cite The Jewish Daily Forward's interview with a Jerusalem drug dealer who, after admitting to the Hezbollah connection, suggests everyone to simply "Roll that shit, light that shit, smoke that shit."

We may scoff that the drug dealers approach to a serious problem, but the quote within itself does bring up a good point: people are going to use hashish and they will look for ways to obtain it. Do the benefits to the current drug policy outweigh the benefits of legalization? With legalization, Israelis can grow cannabis within the state and manufacture their own hash. The supply of hashish will increase dramatically and with it being sold in the regular market, the risk involved decrease as well, lowering prices and making its sale far less profitable.

Rosenthal mentions that police once found marijuana fields in Negev. (393) The details are scarce, but if these fields are not being run by a group that is actively trying to destroy Israel, is it not better to permit it? There are consequences of laissez-faire approach to the drug trade and perhaps groups like Hezbollah can yet find ways to remain entangled especially since they have a head start in the industry already. Ultimately though, it is a matter that should be seriously looked into.

Unfortunately, outside of Stop The Drug War, it is not. Nobody mentioned in Donna Rosenthal's chapter on the subject ever brings it up (minus the guy at the Green Leaf Party who seemed more interested in talking about drugs than actual policy) though she does not necessarily endorse the current drug policy either. The Christian Science Monitor almost justifies Hezbollah's connections with the Lebanese military.

Israel: Second only to Silicon Valley

Microsoft Israel R&D Center located in Haifa.

When the Silicon Valley is imagined by most people, images of a sunny upper-middle class corner of Northern California come to mind. Nice cars, casual attire, rolling green hills, fresh air and people working for companies that are changing the way the world operates. Mention Israel and all of a sudden these images are often replaced by middle eastern stereotypes. Truth be told though, while Israel does not top Silicon Valley, it does manage to at least reach second-best. Donna Rosenthal even points out that few Israelis "know that engineers at Motorola-Israel developed the first cell phone and that most of Windows NT was created at Microsoft-Israel" (Rosenthal, 93).

In 2011, Emma Barnett from UK-based Telegraph notes that Israel has the highest number of high-tech start ups, next to the United States. Even more impressive, it is only beat by the US and China when it comes to the number of companies listed on the NASDAQ. The Telegraph does note that unlike Silicon Valley, Israel doesn't focus on consumer products such as Apple's iPhone. Overall though, Barnett paints Israel as a major player in the tech industry. Barnett is reliable enough as she did some research and even learned something new:

"Additionally I was surprised to learn many technology companies, including Google, Microsoft and Intel, choose to have their major research and development (R and D) centres inside this small state"

Barnett brings up a point that seems to be Rosenthal's overall thesis in the chapter Swords into Stock Shares from her book The Israelis. Essentially, what may have contributed to the growing tech industry is the mandatory military service. BRM Technologies co-founder Eli Barkat (Rosenthal, 79) is quoted in the book discussing how his experiences in the military more or less shaped his problem-solving skills. Equipment shortages in Lebanon were solved by Israeli soldiers taking apart broken abandoned Jeeps (Rosenthal, 81).

With that said, Israel still has a few things to learn from Silicon Valley. Amir Efrati from the Wall Street Journal covered the 100% private start-up accelerator UpWest Labs which helps Israeli tech companies learn from the likes of Facebook, Google and Zynga. UpWest's co-founder Gil Ben-Artzy was an Israeli who found success in Silicon Valley working for Yahoo. Impressed by Israeli technology he sought to give them the same opportunities he feels are available in Silicon Valley. One problem Israelis have that is noted is that they may come off as being negative in the way they handle business. Rosenthal relates in a way, quoting Eli as stating that with Israelis, "you close the door on them and they jump through the window" (Rosenthal, 81). Efrati undoubtedly has high hopes for this start-up accelerator, as the Wall Street Journal article is beaming with support for UpWest.

With Israelis being excellent at problem solving and Americans great at consumer-end products, it is no surprise that companies such as Microsoft do place their R&D centers within Israel. This sort of cooperation is a great example for free trade enthusiasts as the division of labor allows for Israelis to do what Israelis do best and Americans to do what Americans do best with little or no interference.

The Rabbinate Monopoly on Divorce

Speak to any lawyer or even a law student in the United States studying family law about divorce and you will learn that the process can get lengthy and messy. It can get much lengthier and messier in Israel though. This isn't because Israelis are unreasonable folk when compared to others, but rather that the state of Israel has granted a monopoly to religious communities for marriage and divorce. There are no civil marriages or divorces that are legally recognized within Israel. The religious laws that are thus enforced can make it very difficult for a woman to move on with her life.

NPR showcases Ramit Alon, a forty year-old woman who cannot move on and remarry despite leaving her troubled marriage four and a half years ago. The problem? Her husband does not want a divorce. While Alon did already physically leave the marriage, the legality of her situation gets further complicated. For example, if she chooses to move on without officially being divorced, her new children will be considered mamzerim and will be unable to be married in Israel.

Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Dahan told NPR that to label the system as being unfair to women is not true, citing that husbands who more or less actively avoid divorcing their wives can be jailed. NPR quickly states that this is the "exception not the rule." With Men Get the Final Word being part of their headline, it's clear that their point of view is against the religious monopoly. With that said, they did allow the opposing viewpoint a chance to defend itself.

Truth is though, had Alon been the husband, all she would need to do is write a bill of divorce and have it handed to the wife—faxing the bill is acceptable as well. This is based off of Deuteronomy 24:1, "He writes a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand" (Rosenthal, 353). It can get more complicated than that with the involvement of children and the terms of the ketubah (prenuptial agreement) which then involve a decision made by the Rabbinical Court, but what is important is that Jewish law makes divorce a choice made by the husband and not the wife.



This allows for hostage-like situations such as a case family court lawyer Yisraela Gratzyani discussed in Donna Rosenthal's The Israelis:

"Her husband is blackmailing her. He won't give her a divorce unless she gives him the house her parents bought them as well as all her claims to alimony. It's outrageous. He's trying to screw her. To win the judges' sympathy, he's pretending to be religious" (Rosenthal 353). 

Once again, this situation would be much different if the roles were reversed.

The situation can be worse for Muslim women though, who have to deal with Islamic courts. The husband only needs to repeat "I divorce you" thrice to his wife. The woman needs a compelling reason and often times has to return her dowry. Donna Rosenthal summarizes the life of many Muslim women who want a divorce by saying that they "tend to remain in bad marriages or let their husbands have another, unofficial wife than face life as a social pariah." (Rosenthal 366) Like NPR, Rosenthal does seem to sympathize with the red tape women have to deal with.

Ultimately, the difficulty of divorce for Israeli women is a symptom of the state-enforced monopoly on marriage given to religious organizations. American economist Murray Rothbard has noted that "a coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently." This has come true, as evident by Alon's lack of action to procreate not because of a physical impairment but because of a legal one that will make it even more difficult for their marriages.

Israel wants UN official who engaged in deceptive anti-Israeli propaganda out!

Israel has a bone to pick with the United Nations (UN).

Recently, an information and media coordinator for the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Kuhlood Badawi, Tweeted a picture of a The picture is graphic and shows a dead young girl covered with blood in the arms of a man presumed to be her father. Badawi posted this message along with the image (warning: violent image; not work safe).

Palestine is bleeding. Another child killed by #Israel. Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza.

It's a very tragic scene that would pull the heart strings of most people. Unsurprisingly the picture was Retweeted hundreds of times and spread across the internet like wildfire. The problem is, it is actually a picture taken in 2006 and the girl was the unfortunate victim of an automobile collision unrelated to Israel.

Herb Keinon in The Jerusalem Post reports that Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor demanded that Badawi be fired from her job. Prosor pointed out that the Tweet became the top tweet of the day for Gaza related Tweets. Prosor also demanded that the OCHA release a statement about the truth behind the picture.

Keinon also reports that the Israeli Foreign Ministry believes that the OCHA is merely an organization in favor of Palestinian propaganda and that this recent action by Badawi is the icing on the cake. The Foreign Ministry may have a point, as OCHA has an entire website dedicated solely to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Keinon was surprisingly soft on the issue, merely reporting the Tweet, the revelation of the truth behind the photograph, and Israel's response. Keinon seems to be acting as an objective journalist inputting as little opinion as possible. The Post has however published an article by Israel Kasnett in their "magazine" calling for the UN Human Rights Council to be dissolved, with this Twitter incident cited as a reason.

A healthy debate is always good and should be welcomed. Anyone who fears a legitimate argument is practicing misology. Badawi's bias against Israel is clearly obvious as her Twitter account has the phrase "Long live Palestine" above her username and the background features artwork of a woman holding a Palestinian flag. Badawi is certainly right to her opinion and may even have good arguments in favor of it, but to deceive others is not the means to a good debate. It is simply propaganda.

Badawi did eventually Tweet this retraction:

Correction: I tweeted the photo believing it was from the last round of violence & it turned out to be from 2006 This is my personal account

This is eight days after the fact, and a few days after her job was being threatened. It feels like a desperate attempt to cling to her comfy UN job as opposed to a genuine apology over a supposed mistake. Her pointing out that her Twitter is her personal account comes off as a defense in order to separate her role in the OCHA from the incident. I am guessing that her goal is to declare that she is protected by free speech, though the argument against that is the fact that the UN as an organization should have the right to dismiss officials for various reasons. An information and media coordinator engaging in such behavior in my opinion is grounds for termination as it discredits the OCHA.

For those who fact-check and question what they read and see, the picture actually discredits her side of the argument. Unfortunately, the damage is done and many probably still do not know that the tragic image, while still tragic, was unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The death of a child is tragic. The deceptive usage of the death of a child for your own gains is absolutely disgusting.

The Iranian Nuclear Question: Hardly New

Iran has been appearing in the news rather frequently as of late. Even as most American voters seem to be most concerned about the economy, the subject of Iran is usually brought up in every 2012 Presidential debate. The topic of Iran and nuclear weapons is of course of great interest to Israel in particular, as relations between the two became very much hostile since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

A book could be written on the whole affair, even if its just to cover a fraction of the time since 1979. Indeed, Herb Keinon's article in The Jerusalem Post is titled 'Planning underway for other 'options' on Iran' but covers a wide range of topics, including the Iron Dome anti-missile system, American-Egyptian relations and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement. Some of these, surprisingly enough, is related to Israel's question on what to do, if anything, about Iran.

The Post tries to be descriptive and objective as possible, explaining their headline with the fact that US Ambassador Dan Shapiro stated in Jerusalem that all options are "on the table" and that plans are being made to make sure that said options can be pulled off. Israeli President Shimon Peres also spoke, defending the right and capability of Israel to defend itself "against any threat." Peres also rebutted the claim made by The Haaretz that he would tell President Barack Obama that Israel should not attack Iran.

Shapiro discussed some of the options that were already being practiced by the US such as economic sanctions. Interestingly enough, Shapiro downplayed the supposed disconnect between the Obama administration and Israel, saying that “those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk. Much of what is written on this topic is pure speculation and much of it is wrong.”

The article continues to talk about other subjects Shapiro mentions such as the Iron Dome anti-missile system. The connection is not made clear asides from Shapiro talking about all of this at the same event. However, it is related in that the Iron Dome shoots rockets shot from Gaza suspected to be fired from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah; the two groups are funded by Iran.

The article continues with more statements from Shapiro. An emphasis on existing contracts was made by Shapiro, referencing Egyptian interests. As a last note, Shapiro stated that the American government, unsurprisingly, does not feel optimistic regarding the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement.

It's possible that The Post may have cherry picked from Shapiro's speech, but it seems to be the most informative out of coverage from other outlets such as Tel Aviv's Yedioth Ahronoth. The headline is misleading in that the article is more about Shapiro's speech rather than a specific part of it covering Iran. This could be because an American ambassador stating that "all options are on the table" is a significant enough event to warrant the title of the headline. Most other news sources don't even bother reporting on the rest of Shapiro's statements.

The whole thing has a sense of deja vu, as a 2009 article in the New York Daily News explains in its headline, "Israeli Defense Minister Barak to U.S.: 'No option' off table on Iran." The real question that should be asked is not wither or not Israel has the right to defend itself, but rather, if it should engage in a preemptive strike. Other questions may follow, such as the issue of American involvement in such a strike. So far, Israel has decided to refrain from a strike against Iran.

Netanyahu to Fatah: Peace with Israel or unify with Hamas!

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly criticized the Hamas and Fatah unity deal signed by Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas. The deal, signed in Qatar, combines the two parties into a unity government led by Abbas as interim prime minister, with the goal of kickstarting efforts to rebuild the Gaza strip. Barak Ravid in the HaaretzDaily Newspaper quoted Netanyahu's statements at a Lukid party meeting:

"Hamas is a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel and is supported by Iran." 

Netanyahu continues by explaining that Israel has been making efforts towards a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that this unity agreement could only serve to disrupt it. Hamas chief Khaled Meshal argued that the move ends "the chapter of division," promoting Palestinian "reconciliation."

The Jerusalem Post's coverage of this story argues that Netanyahu's remarks were actually directed at the international community so that outside pressure can be placed on the Fatah party in Palestine to rethink its strategy. Netanyahu labels Hamas as a terrorist group, funded by Iran, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist as well as denying previous peace agreements between Israel and Palestine. It is noted that in 2006 Hamas was victorious in the Palestinian legislature elections, with a Hamas member appointed as prime minister. Israel refused to cooperate with the Hamas-led government. Both the United States and European Union made statements that are not concrete, though the US seems to be more likely to support Netanyahu's stance as it reiterated his point about Hamas being the issue, whereas the EU called reconciliation "an opportunity rather than a threat."

The articles in Haaretz by Barak Ravid and The Jerusalem Post by Herb Keinon are written in a way to limit commentary as much as possible. Thus, there is at least an attempt to be objective, using direct quotes from statements and speeches. With that said, Ravid was very limited in its reporting in that it merely quotes Netanyahu and Meshal while concluding with a summary of what the unity agreement is composed of. Keinon on the other hand provides background into the issue which in a way explains that such a unity deal would be made by the Islamist Hamas and secular Fatah due to the consequences of the 2006 elections. Truth be told though, Hamas does tend to be very much absolutist in their goals. However, this could very well be a move by Hamas towards realistic approaches to solving issues as it involves working with a party that is against their Islamist views.

On the other hand, Israel may have reason to not trust Hamas to work in a way that would be mutually beneficial to both Israel and Palestinians. In fact, the Haaretz mentions that both Fatah and Hamas were considering having Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh as Abbas’ deputy in the unity government. Haniyeh has recently stated during a trip to Iran that Hamas will never recognize the state of Israel and thanked Iran for their support of the Palestinian resistance—or terrorism as Netanyahu considers it. Conviction is admirable (without initiating force, of course) but the reality of the situation here is that Hamas’ goal of “liberating” all of Palestine from Israel is highly unlikely to happen now. Thus while they could see this as an ideal, it would be best for them to find a solution where they can get as close to their goal as possible. 

Israel on the other hand needs to realize that by snubbing a political faction that may have actually fairly won elections only makes them look like the opposition, in this case Fatah, look like a puppet party. This can create blowback as the Palestinian people who support Hamas will see Israel as an illegitimate influence on their own affairs. As much as Israel hates Hamas, this unity government is better for Israel, at least better than a solid Hamas government. At the same time, Israel has little incentive to cooperate with Hamas due to its unrealistic goals which are the antithesis to the Israeli state. As Israel has the upper hand in its affairs, Hamas needs to find common ground.