The Hannibal Procedure

Despite all our fears the Shalit saga had a happy ending, so now we should be able to return to our normal routine.

I wonder though, if anything is ever normal or routine in Israel.

Admittedly, much of the exuberant hue and cry that accompanied Gilad Shalit's release has died down; the news media coverage is more subdued and other topics, old and new, are gradually claiming more prime-time.

Notwithstanding the return to normalcy, mundane details concerning Gilad are still newsworthy items. After all, we are all curious to know how he is adjusting. Soon Gilad will be ready for debriefing and later still he will be officially released from active army service.

No doubt his parents, Noam and Aviva will be glad to return to anonymity, to being two ordinary citizens again.

Prior to Gilad's kidnapping Noam held a senior position in the marketing department of the Iscar metal working tools company at the Tefen Industrial Park in Western Galilee. Throughout the Gilad Shalit campaign, Iscar's chairman Eitan Wertheimer discretely but solidly supported the Shalit family.

It should be noted that in May 2006, Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett , purchased an 80% stake in Iscar for US$4 billion. Buffett too, firmly supported the Shalit family in the long struggle to bring their son home

Wertheimer provided the Shalit family with an apartment in Jerusalem, funded the family members' personal needs, including food, and helped finance the campaign.

Gilad is home, recuperating well and probably prefers anonymity to fame. However, there's always a sequel, an inevitable postscript to almost every incident of this kind.

Last week I wrote that everyone is happy that Gilad has returned home, but some people regret the high price we had to pay for his release.

"No decent person can fail to be moved by the return of Gilad Shalit to Israel. Few eyes will have been dry at his reunion with his family. Yet it has to be said that ultimately, this deal represents a triumph of heart over head and sentimentality over realism.

The Shalit family did what many of us hope we would have done in similar circumstances – fought a tenacious and brilliant campaign to sustain public pressure on the government to secure their son’s release.

It was, however, emotional blackmail – and the Israel government should have resisted it. Shalit came to be regarded as every Israeli’s son.

Tragically, however, in the years to come Israel may come to realise that it paid for the life of Gilad Shalit with the blood of further murdered Israelis and the lifelong torment of their families." Wrote Melanie Phillips in the Daily Telegraph

Past experience has taught us that a high percentage of released Palestinian prisoners kill again.

Yoram Schweitzer dealt with the repeat offender factor in an article he wrote for the Institute for National Strategic Studies I periodical - “Insight,”

Relating specifically to the Palestinian prisoners being released now he says,

“Some 120 convicted security prisoners were released to their homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Some of the released are older and have spent long periods of time in prison; even if they rejoin their various organisations it is unclear if they will ever be directly involved again in terrorist activity. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that among those released there will be some who will be willing and even volunteer in their organisations to act on behalf of freeing those still behind bars.”

Haaretz columnist Bradley Burston claims that the Palestinian terrorists released in the current deal were directly responsible for the deaths of 599 Israelis. "However," he adds, " had we waited longer for a deal, Gilad Shalit might well have made it 600."

Burston gave his own summary of prisoner exchange deals.

"In Israel's nine prisoner exchanges with Arab enemies, dating back to the first, 54 years ago, Israel has freed 13,509 prisoners in order to win the release of a total of 16 soldiers."

Miki Goldwasser the mother of IDF reserve soldier Ehud Goldwasser, abducted and killed by Hezbollah in 2006 is one of a number of bereaved relatives who supported the current prisoner exchange deal.
Referring to the lopsided ratio she said, "They did not win, and they know it. They were humiliated precisely because so many terrorists were released for only one soldier."

Israeli Arab journalist and documentary film maker Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in Hudson New York pointing out some of the deal's negative repercussions.

"The deal is a severe blow to Abbas who, at least in public, says he remains committed to a non-violent and peaceful solution with Israel. In light of Hamas's success to force Israel to free a large number of prisoners, Abbas and his team in Ramallah now look like incompetent and weak leaders who have failed to extract significant concessions from Israel at the negotiating table.

Like the withdrawals from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the prisoner swap has sent the same message not only to the Palestinians, but to the rest of the Arab world: that violence and kidnappings are the only language that Israel understands, and that the violent struggle against Israel must continue because negotiations do not lead to anything.

Sadly, it is hard to find anyone on the Palestinian side who sees the exchange deal as a sign of Israeli flexibility. On the contrary - Israel's concessions are almost always interpreted as a sign of weakness that eventually leads to more violence."

Following the first stage of the prisoner exchange the slogan "We Want More Shalits!" and similar cries were chanted in Gaza and Ramallah.

Already moves are afoot to introduce legislation intended to regulate the prisoner exchange rate in future deals. Even before the bill is tabled legislators doubt its feasibility. If the Knesset decides to limit governments and their negotiators to the suggested one for one prisoner exchange rate it’s quite likely that when the next prisoner swap takes place the government in power will find a way to pay the price demanded.

There is another way to counter Palestinian terrorist extortion.

Eight year years ago investigative reporter Sara Leibovich-Dar exhumed an old IDF procedure in an article she published in Haaretz.. It was an instruction for officers and the men in their command concerning action to be taken in kidnapping situations. The 'Hannibal Procedure.' was a well-kept army secret - an order that said the abduction of soldiers by enemy forces should be thwarted even if this entails shooting the abductees. Though now officially abolished, the implications of this controversial procedure still haunt many."

In the summer of 1986, three senior officers met at Northern Command headquarters and drew up one of the most controversial operational orders in the history of the Israel Defense Forces. The three were the head of Northern Command at the time, Major General Yossi Peled (now a Likud party Knesset member), the command's operations officer, Colonel Gabi Ashkenazi (former IDF chief of staff) and the command's intelligence officer, Colonel Yaakov Amidror (at present Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror the programme director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs.) The order they formulated had to do with the rules for opening fire in cases in which soldiers were being abducted: "During abduction, the major mission is to rescue our soldiers from the abductors even at the price of harming or wounding our soldiers. Light-arms fire is to be used in order to bring the abductors to the ground or to stop them. If the vehicle or the abductors do not stop, single-shot (sniper) fire should be aimed at them, deliberately, in order to hit the abductors, even if this means hitting our soldiers. In any event, everything will be done to stop the vehicle and not allow it to escape."

When I first heard about the Hannibal Procedure I wondered what the Carthaginian general had to do with the IDF procedure for opening fire.

Initially it was an oral procedure. Only later when it was written in official ordinances the IDF computer gave the order a random, though particularly exotic, code name: "Hannibal." Field commanders apprised their soldiers about the underlying meaning of the "Hannibal procedure": From the point of view of the army, a dead soldier is better than a captive soldier who himself suffers and forces the state to release thousands of captives in order to obtain his release.

The order generated a furor within the IDF. At least one battalion commander refused to transmit it to his soldiers, arguing that it was flagrantly illegal, and in a number of units lively debates took place about the morality of the order.

A number of enlisted and permanent army personnel said they would refuse to open fire on their fellow soldiers

A religious soldier put the question to his rabbi and was told to refuse to obey the order. Other soldiers asked journalists and Knesset members to do what they could to get the order changed or rescinded. Indeed, later it was revised. It now states that soldiers should fire only at the wheels of the vehicle in which soldiers are being abducted, but without risking the lives of the abducted soldiers.

I believe it was Israel High Court Judge Edmond Levy who coined the term “flagrantly illegal” regarding certain military commands. The IDF’s legal department was never asked to examine the legal implications of the ‘Hannibal Procedure.’ Today new regulations, procedures and orders are scrutinised by the IDF’s legal department. Our soldiers can claim an order is “flagrantly illegal” whenever they have good reason to doubt its legality.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 27^th of October, 2011.

Welcome home

The sight of dozens of hot air balloons taking to the sky near Gideon’s Spring early on Tuesday morning could have been interpreted as a good omen.

Indeed, a few hours later Gilad Shalit was on his way home after more than five years in captivity. However, the aerial display was simply a happy coincidence. The hot air balloon festival was part of the Sukkot celebrations organised by the Gilboa.Regional Council.

The IDF, ever innovative in choosing appropriate names for our wars, campaigns and other events, decided to call Tuesday’s logistically complicated prisoner exchange “Operation Beit Hashoeva.” The reference of course is to the drawing of water for the libation ceremony that took place in the Temple during Sukkot. At that time, when most of our ancestors were farmers, the libation ceremony, a supplication for sufficient rain, was the best insurance policy available. Nowadays, it seems we place more trust in the national water carrier, water conservation systems, modern irrigation methods and desalination plants. All these modern adjuncts to heaven-sent precipitation are very efficient, but give no cause for celebration.

By all accounts the Temple libation ceremony referred to as Simchat Beit Haoshoeva was a joyous occasion. Our sages claimed that, “He who has not seen the rejoicing at the place where the water was drawn, has never seen rejoicing in his life.”

I’m told that Simchat Beit Haoshoeva celebrations, especially among Hassidic communities in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak are also joyous occasions.

Just the same, on Tuesday the celebration that accompanied Gilad Shalit’s homecoming was “the only show in town.”

The unprecedented elation felt everywhere is unique and in no way comparable to the jubilant receptions held in Gaza and Ramallah for the first batch of Palestinian terrorists released in exchange for Gilad.

Some observers have attributed the success of the campaign to free Gilad to the Shalit family, its many supporters, the empathy of the news-media and to the changing circumstances of Hamas and the Egyptian interim government. Furthermore, Prime Minister Netanyahu, beleaguered by the social protest campaign, a threatened mass resignation of doctors in the public medical service as well as the rise of charismatic labour party leader Shelly Yachimovitch, was in dire need of something to improve his public image.

It’s true to say that everyone in this country wanted Gilad Shalit to return home safe and sound. Despite the very lopsided deal - 1,027 terrorists in exchange for one Israeli soldier, 80% of Israelis ( according to a poll conducted by the daily Yediot Ahronot) thought it was the right thing to do.

In an attempt to explain the anomalous nature of the exchange deal to its readers the Washington Post published an article claiming that the efforts made to bring about Gilad Shalit’s release, “Owed much to a public relations campaign that turned the kidnapped soldier into an icon, portraying him as the nation’s son, with bumper stickers, billboards and TV ads," …. "PR firms and communications experts working for Shalit’s parents drove a sophisticated campaign that also enlisted celebrities, musicians and an army of thousands of volunteers.

The emotional bedrock on which the campaign grew: A national ethos of solidarity in Israel, an 'all for one and one for all' mentality necessary in a country with compulsory military service for Jewish citizens, helped the campaign encourage activism on such a large scale."

I think that the turning point in the campaign occurred in June last year when the Shalits embarked on a 12-day march from their home in Mitzpe Hila to Jerusalem. Tens of thousands joined them along the way. They then moved into the protest tent across the road from the prime minister’s office and vowed to spend their days there until their son returned home.

Throughout the campaign there was opposition to a prisoner exchange involving the release of large numbers of Palestinian terrorists.

Over the last 30 years, Israel has released about 7,000 Palestinian prisoners in order to free 19 Israelis and retrieve the bodies of eight others.

Perhaps the guidelines for the current prisoner exchange were formulated in 1985 when the Israeli government released 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon. Then-Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin defended the deal. "When no military option exists," he said, "there is no choice but to enter negotiations and pay a price."

Some of the people who opposed the high price paid for Gilad’s release claim that the Israeli government was coerced by unrelenting public pressure to make concessions. They argue that it was the high profile campaign that convinced Hamas to hold out for a better exchange rate

Public opinion expert Dr. Yehuda Ben Meir director of the Public Opinion and National Security Project at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University believes the Shalit campaign had a negative aspect..

In an article published in Haaretz he wrote, “The Israeli government was not swayed by public pressure for a deal at any price, and did in the end manage to wring some crucial concessions from Hamas.”

“It is possible,” he concluded, “that without all the public protest, demonstrations and irresponsible behaviour by the media over the years — which only strengthened Hamas’s mistaken feeling that Israel would surrender to all its demands — Gilad Shalit would have been home a long time ago and for a much lower price.”

Undoubtedly Dr. Ben Meir is an expert, however he hasn’t convinced me. I suspect his expert opinion is to some extent influenced by his political background and former affiliation to the National Religious Party

A number of security and defence experts have related to the risk involved in the release of so many convicted terrorists. The release in two stages helps the surveillance of these potentially dangerous people. In addition the security fence, surveillance conducted by both the Palestinian and Israeli security forces will make it difficult for any of the unrepentant former prisoners to engage in terrorist activity. Technological means too aid in the surveillance work. We are living in age of tell-tale electronic monitoring which helps pinpoint where the person under surveillance is. Add to this the time-tested method of employing local informants who are willing to sell their own grandmothers if need be.

The dilemma we faced deciding whether to pay an exorbitant price for the release of one prisoner is not new. The ethical injunction to redeem hostages goes back to the time when Jewish communities were held ransom by both knaves and noblemen to redeem Jewish captives. However, our sages did place a limit on the price to be paid. They fixed the limit in instances when paying the ransom was beyond the community’s means and would lead to further extortion.

The vast majority of Israel’s citizens thought paying the price for Gilad was morally right

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesman Rupert Colville said "It was with a sense of great relief that we have received news of the agreement to exchange prisoners. We do however have concerns regarding reports that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank may be released to the Gaza Strip or abroad. If in some cases this has been without the free and informed consent of the concerned individuals, this may constitute forced transfer or deportation under international law," he added. "We are not sure to what extent they consented to this."

The International Committee of the Red Cross also admonished us
"Returning people to places other than their habitual places of residence is in contradiction to international humanitarian law.”
I wonder if they realise that the “individuals” they are talking about are terrorists not “white-frocked choir boys.”

Israelis opposing the prisoner exchange deal have pointed out that other countries do not deal with terrorists. They claim we should follow their example.

I don’t know how many US citizens following the campaign to release Gilad Shalit know that US Serviceman Bowe Bergdahl has been held in captivity by the Taliban in Afghanistan for the past two years. I doubt if many Americans have heard of Iraqi American United States Army linguist Staff Sergeant Ahmed Kousay Altaie who was captured five years ago in Baghdad and is still waiting to be released.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he expected the Israeli-Palestinian prisoner exchange would boost prospects for the wider peace process.

Few people here share his optimism.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 21^st of October, 2011.

Yoav's last battle

Like many Israelis I feared Gilad Shalit would die in captivity. However, we were wrong, Gilad is coming home!

Two years ago I wrote about a meeting between Minister of Defence Ehud Barak and a group of Israeli high school students. In an oblique reference to Gilad Shalit a senior student due to be called up for military service asked

“If I fall into enemy hands can the state guarantee my safety?”

Barak's answer was blunt and to the point. “The state can't even guarantee you will stay alive." He said facing the student but directing his remarks to attentive ears in Gaza. "The state of Israel is willing to do anything to free kidnapped soldiers – but not at any price."

Later the same day a Hamas spokesman made an oblique reference to Barak's reply indicating that the message had been received.

TV. Channel 10 reporter Raviv Drucker griped about “Israel's emotional obsession with Shalit.”… “There is no nice way to say it: we've gone ‘overboard’ about Gilad Shalit,” Drucker continued,” The whole country is caught up in an emotional obsession. Our national agenda is a brief one line slogan – release Gilad, and to hell with the price,”

Expressing sympathy with the Shalit family Drucker concluded, “It's true that if I were Gilad's father, I'd do everything to set him free, but that's exactly the difference between the interests of a single family and the interests of a state.”

Quoted "off the record" Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak once complained about all the fuss being made "for the sake of one soldier." Nevertheless, Mubarak, not entirely for altruistic reasons, has repeatedly tried to broker a prisoner exchange with Hamas aimed at bringing about Shalit's release.

Ehud Barak's blunt retort and Drucker’s brash remarks stand out in sharp contrast to the Shalit family's quiet subdued manner, their almost apologetic appeal for help. Noam and Aviva Shalit have stoically accepted many rebuffs and faced repeated disappointments. They are truly the "salt of the earth."

They are not alone in their struggle. A formidable army of volunteers has waged a war against apathy and the "not at any price" attitude.

The problem is the price is never right and at times the negotiations for a prisoner exchange are more like horse-trading than an equitable deal.

So how do I explain the government’s change of heart?

Reporting for the Washington Post Joel Greenberg wrote “The consummation of a deal between the sworn adversaries after years of fruitless negotiations reflected the pressures facing both Israel and Hamas at a time of region-wide uprisings and a rapidly shifting Middle Eastern landscape.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had previously warned that a swap for Shalit would free dangerous militants and put Israel’s security at risk. But amid a relentless campaign by Shalit’s family that won the hearts of the Israeli public, Netanyahu ultimately bowed. In remarks Tuesday night, he acknowledged that Israel, which has become increasingly isolated amid the regional tumult, was faced with the stark choice of winning Shalit’s freedom now or seeing the chance disappear forever.

Hamas, meanwhile, receives a much-needed boost from the deal at a time when it has been overshadowed by Fatah, its chief rival, which has led a popular bid at the United Nations for Palestinian statehood . By winning the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, Hamas can claim an achievement that had long eluded the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority.

Still, the move eliminates one of Hamas’s chief bargaining chips in its dealings with Israel.”

In the past the head of the General Security Services (GSS/Shabak) and the director of the Mossad opposed a deal that involved freeing a large number of Palestinian terrorists. They feared that after their release they would engage in terrorist activities again. Many on the list of Palestinian prisoners about to be released possess organisational ability and are capable of establishing Hamas terrorist cells.

In an effort to minify the repetitive offender risk, the most potentially dangerous prisoners will be sent to the Gaza Strip, others will be exiled and the rest will be released in stages to their homes in the West Bank

The new heads of the GSS and the Mossad, the IDF chief of staff and the prime minister himself believe it is worth taking the risk.

Labour party leader Shelly Yachimovich supported the proposed prisoner exchange. “Rejecting it,” she said, “presented a greater danger to Israel’s security. Our soldiers’ moral fibre is just as much a security factor as the security risks involved in the current prisoner exchange deal.”

At a special cabinet meeting held on Tuesday night Prime Minister Netanyahu referred specifically to the price and the possible consequences of freeing 1,027 terrorists, among them many murderers. Mentioning the bereaved families of the people killed by Palestinian terrorists, some of whom had opposed exchanging terrorists for Israeli prisoners, he reminded them that he too was a member of a bereaved family. His brother Yonatan Netanyahu was killed at Entebbe freeing Israeli hostages.

There’s a link between Yonatan Netanyahu and the event I intended devoting this entire letter to.

Last week we attended a cenotaph inauguration ceremony held near the pipeline road not far from the Nafah army base on the Golan Heights.

As we left our bus and approached the cenotaph I recalled Hosni Mubarak‘s remark about all the fuss being made "for the sake of one soldier." In this instance the cenotaph was erected for the sake of two soldiers killed in the Yom Kippur War, Lieutenant Colonel David Yisraeli, second in command of the 188^th Armoured Brigade and Lieutenant Yoav Barkai, a reserve army tank commander serving in the 179^th Armoured Brigade. Both died in the battle to contain the massive Syrian attack on the Golan Heights.

Yoav and his wife Leora were our neighbours. Their children and our children played together. Their youngest child Topaz was born four months after her father was killed in action. A few years later Leora and her children moved to Katzrin on the Golan Heights not far from the place where Yoav was killed. During her childhood, youth and adult life she accepted the narrative of her father’s death unquestioningly. He was the father she never knew, so there was little reason to delve into the past to discover the exact circumstances of his death. Then suddenly, two years ago this remarkable woman decided to find out what happened on that terrible day, the 7^th of October, 1973.

At this juncture I want to quote from Christopher Bellamy’s book “The Future of Land Warfare.” Professor Bellamy served as an artillery officer in the British army prior to becoming a distinguished journalist reporting for the Independent on defence related topics. Later still he went on to pursue an academic career in War Studies.

The Syrians had the advantage of surprise, numbers and better tanks. Delaying the Syrian advance was of critical importance. Bellamy describes the battle scene as follows, “The Golan Heights occupies a surprisingly small area. From its western most edge it is only 50 km to Acre and the sea. There is no strategic depth, no free space in which to manoeuvre. Every centimetre of that slab of terrain captured in 1967 is strategically important.” Describing the battle it’s difficult for Bellamy to be impartial; he obviously admires the Israelis’ versatility and ability to turn a seemingly hopeless situation to their advantage.

“It was the archetypal tank battle to date. It was massive, violent and continuous. As the Syrians rolled across the plain they sometimes became intermixed with the Israeli tanks which swung their turrets round as the Syrians passed them and continued to fire. Some of the Israeli fortifications in the plain continued to hold as the advancing armour lapped round them, delaying Syrian forces which had to be diverted to deal with them, providing valuable intelligence and adjusting Israeli fire, a clear indicator of the value of such stay behind parties’ and fortifications. As the Syrian tanks came on they engaged them one by one: target – traverse! – range – fire. The average time to destroy a Syrian tank once spotted was about five seconds. When they ran out of ammunition they had to go back and get more – it was virtually impossible to bring resupply forward. At the beginning most of the Syrian tanks were Soviet made T-54s and T-55s, but later they brought in the T-62s, which should have been able to outshoot and out-manoeuvre the Israeli Pattons and Centurions.

However another timeless truth worked for the Israelis; it takes time and practice to learn to operate a complex weapons system, and the long experience the Israelis had of theirs combined with superior training and the higher level of education, initiative and skill of the individual Israeli told time and again as they picked off target after target.”

Describing behaviour under fire Chris Bellamy was scrupulously fair.

“Incredible bravery was shown on both sides. The crews of Syrian tanks hit in the tracks continued to fire from stationary positions until they were shot apart. Because the T-54s and T-55s carry their ammunition in the turret, the risk of explosion was great, and even if they didn’t explode immediately they caught fire.”

Once again he points out how ingenuity and versatility helped the IDF positions and the few remaining tanks to hold on and further delay the Syrians.

“As night fell the Syrians gained an advantage, as they had better night vision equipment. However, the Israelis managed to avoid disaster by using illuminating shells fired from artillery. Artillery was brought down right on top of the beleaguered fortifications to sweep off Syrian infantry while from direct fire positions the Israeli tanks engaged their Syrian counterparts, a clear example of the need to use each weapon for what it is best at in a mutually supportive scheme.

The Syrians continued to advance head on, wave after wave. They did not change the direction of their attacks, more out of pride, one suspects, than inability to conceive other courses of action. Although the tactics were clumsy, their major objectives had been selected with skill and showed detailed knowledge of the Israeli dispositions. One objective was the Jacob’s Daughters’ Bridge, the main line of communication for all the Israeli forces in the central Golan Heights. Other tanks swung south down the old pipeline road, connecting north Golan with the south. Sheer weight of numbers had to tell and by midday on Sunday 7^th of October Syrian forces were within 8km of Jacob’s Daughters Bridge. At this stage the first trickle of IDF reserve forces had arrived.”

In an article that appeared in Ein Harod’s internal journal Topaz describes her father’s “last battle.” Yoav was a reserve army officer who served with the armoured corps’ 179^th brigade. Units of the brigade joined with the permanent army’s188^th tank brigade near Nafah. Topaz told how the opportunity to discover more details about the battle arose when she worked as Katzrin municipality’s spokeswoman. Using both personal contacts and IDF facilities she received her fathers call up folder that contained his tank licence, a receipt entitling him to be reimbursed for travel expenses from Ein Harod to the base camp near Rosh Pina and half of his IDF indentity disk . A broken disk indicates that its owner was killed in action.

Six months later Topaz was chosen by the IDF’s casualties administrative division to take part in an army delegation sent to Poland. In preparation for the journey she set about researching the battle at Nafah. Topaz described how accompanied by the brigade commander at Nafah and a patrol officer they retraced the stages of the battle. A short distance along the pipeline road they came to a lone cypress tree and a small cenotaph. The inscription told how David Yisraeli the 188^th brigade’s second in command joined Yoav’s tank after his own was hit. Till that moment they had never met, now they continued the battle with only two shells to fire and their Browning machine gun to ward off enemy infantry. Both of them were killed after Yoav’s tank was hit by Syrian fire.

While she was gathering this information Topaz discovered more details in a recently published book on the crucial first stages of the battle for the Golan Heights. At about the same time she met a group of 188 brigade veterans who had spent five years piecing together the battle details. Their research led to the publication of the book. She also learnt that two members of the Centurion’s crew survived the hit that disabled the tank. After contacting them they told her the complete story of Yoav’s last hours.

Erecting a more fitting cenotaph for David and Yoav proved to be a formidable task. Initially it was a family project preparing the site, planting flowers and installing a Centurion’s turret replete with canon which Topaz’s brother Ravid managed to acquire. The 188 brigade command was quick to support the project however; getting the ministry of defence to recognize and support their efforts was delayed by endless bureaucracy.

Late on Thursday afternoon a large crowd of friends and relatives of the two families – Yisraeli and Barkai participated in a very moving and impressive ceremony inaugurating the cenotaph. Perhaps the most tangible climax of the ceremony was when in response to a signal from the brigade commander an IDF Merkava III tank roared over the crest behind the cenotaph and lined up next to the old Centurion’s turret and cannon.

By clicking on the hyperlink below you will be able to see a video of the cenotaph inauguration ceremony.

You can watch it here:
http://vimeo.com/30383662

Untitled http://vimeo.com/30383662 Involves Beni Kaye.

Forward this email to your friends and family

Three footnotes:

• The 188^th brigade was almost completely destroyed in the confrontation with the Syrian forces . 112 soldiers were killed including the brigade commander.

After the Yom Kippur War Yonatan Netanyahu was entrusted with the task of rebuilding the brigade.

• The name Pipeline Road was constructed to service the now defunct oil pipeline of the Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company. Oil was pumped through the pipeline from Saudi Arabia through Jordan and Syria until reaching its oil export terminal in Sidon on the coast of Lebanon. It stopped functioning in 1976.

• Like most people I thought Jacob’s Daughters Bridge referred to a ford where the patriarch and his daughters crossed the River Jordan. However, there’s no specific biblical reference linking Jacob to this place.

Little sisters and daughters are commonly used by the Catholic church in names given to various orders of nuns.

A mediaeval order of nuns centred in Safed known as the Daughters of James (the Hebrew name Jacob is often translated as James), were allowed by the Turks to charge a toll on the bridge. We probably will never know the answer to the name riddle. A number of bridges were built over the river at the ford and destroyed one after the other. A relatively new bridge still honouring Jacob’s daughters replaced two older IDF Bailey bridges.

We are celebrating Sukkot , the Feast of Tabernacles .

Chag Sameach

Beni 13^th of October, 2011

“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, and your tabernacles, O Israel!”

“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, and your tabernacles, O Israel!”

A phrase from the Book of Numbers that forms the opening line of the prayer said by observant Jews when entering a synagogue. The biblical text tells how Balaam was sent by Balak the king of Moab to curse the Israelite camp but blessed it instead.

Tel Aviv Municipality wardens were neither cursing nor blessing Tel Aviv's Rothschild Boulevard tent dwellers when they arrived early this week to dismantle and remove the motley compound of twenty tents and awnings from the avenue's tree shaded strip. They were just doing their job.

The social justice protesters had already left the boulevard and only a few "camp followers" remained. A few longstanding homeless people and some nondescript hangers-on, best left undefined, were all that was left of the once bustling tent compound.

With winter approaching and impressive initial goals already gained the social justice protest leaders decided to break camp and find another way to further their demands.

Here's a brief synopsis of the protest movement.

Barely four months ago Daphne Leef, a hitherto unknown 25 year old video editor despaired of finding an affordable apartment in Tel Aviv. So she pitched a tent at the HaBima Square end of Rothschild Boulevard and opened up a Facebook protest page.

There was an immediate response and others joined her initiative.

The following day fifty tents were pegged down along the boulevard.

The national students union was quick to join the protests.

A week after Leef camped out tens of thousands of demonstrators participated in a mass march from Rothschild Boulevard to the Tel Aviv Museum of Art plaza where the protest movement’s first rally was held.

The following day a smaller, but nevertheless significant march took place in Jerusalem.

In an attempt to placate the demonstrators Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced new housing programmes aimed at addressing the housing shortage in Israel and at supporting the students.

Other underprivileged groups joined the protests. Thousands of Israeli parents took part in the first “strollers march” protesting the high cost of raising children.

An impromptu leadership committee was set up to maintain the momentum of the protests and determine further action.

On the 30^th of July between 85,000 and 150,000 protesters (official estimates differ) took part in mass rallies held all over Israel.

A week later between 200,000 and 350,000 people participated in similar protest rallies.

Further protest marches and rallies occurred almost every weekend. They culminated in the “March of the Million” that took place on the 3^rd of September.

In retrospect the one million protesters' goal was far too ambitious. Nevertheless, about 460,000 people took to the streets to protest the governments' economic policies.

Four days later Tel Aviv municipality wardens visited the tent sites and posted eviction notices. The following day demonstrations took place when they attempted to dismantle the tent encampments.

Mayor Huldai and many Tel Aviv Council members supported the protesters' demands, however they were forced to send the wardens in when Tel Aviv residents living alongside the tent compounds complained about the

“environmental damage" caused by the "campers."

Among the screeds of material written about the tent communities I found a reference comparing them with the early kibbutz communities.

The Hebrew poet Avraham Shlonsky lived at Ein Harod during the early twenties.

In his lyrical poem "Zemer" (song) Shlonsky likened the Gilboa foothills and Mt. Gilboa to camels kneeling by the Jezreel Valley witnessing the new encampment below by Gideon’s Spring.

He wrote, “They remember the white of our tents that descended on the valley like doves."

If the municipal wardens manage to clear away the hangers-on, we too will be left with only a memory of a brief but epic stage in the social justice struggle.

Initially the protest movement leaders concentrated their efforts on reducing the cost of housing in Israel. New to the political stage, they were loath to suggest how their problems could be solved. They insisted that the onus is on the government to provide solutions. Notwithstanding this they promised to work together with Knesset members and lobbyists to promote rent control legislation to better protect tenants from ruthless landlords.

By August the protesters’ demands had become more radical. They wanted a thorough overhaul of the Israeli economy and society.

The list of demands for broader changes in the Israeli society and governance, articulated by protesters and activists, reads as follows :

• A new taxation system based on lower indirect taxes and higher direct taxes.
• Free schooling beginning at day-care centre/kindergarten age.
• An end to privatisation of state-owned enterprises.
• Allocating more resources to further public housing and public transportation.

Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to these demands by appointing a special committee headed by Professor Manuel Trajtenberg. The committee was given a mandate to examine the protesters’ complaints and present recommendations within one month.

The committee was commissioned to investigate:

• Proposals to change priorities in order to improve the economic well-being of working and middle class Israelis.
• Formulating a new taxation system.
• Finding ways to make social services more accessible.
• Ways to increase competition in the Israeli economy .
• Measures required reducing housing prices.

Although the 14 member committee was given a free rein to investigate the complaints their mandate was manacled by budgetary constraints.

Any changes recommended would have to be paid for by internal budgetary cuts, namely “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

The defence ministry budget appeared to be an easy target. Other ministries would willingly gang up to pare the fat off this relatively large budget.

Cutting back on defence expenditure could be accomplished quickly.

Even Minister of Defence Barak thought there was room to consider certain cuts in the defence budget. Barak is leading the Independence party, a splinter group left in the government after the split in the Labour party.

With Knesset elections two years away or maybe sooner, Barak is eager to score popularity points.

During 1950–66, Israel spent an average of 9% of its Gross Domestic Product on defence. Defence expenditure increased dramatically after both the 1967 and 1973 wars. It reached an all-time high of about 24% of Israel’s GDP in the 1980s.

Following the signing of peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt it was reduced to about 9% of Israel’s GDP, about $15 billion

In 2008, Israel spent $16.2 billion on its armed forces, making it the country with the biggest ratio of defence spending to GDP and as a percentage of the budget of all developed countries.($2,300 per person).

Israel finance ministers have always complained about the lack of transparency in the defence ministry’s budget reports. They say it’s money well spent but not well explained.

Obviously if the budget is itemised in detail it will be easier for the fat-trimmers to suggest where to cut.

Army spokespersons are extremely reluctant to have the army’s funding reduced.

They responded with a time-tested fear tactic pointing to the Iranian centrifuges churning out enriched uranium, the possible unfavourable outcome of the “Arab Spring” and the threats from Hezbollah and Hamas.

Referring specifically to the latter, they warned that cutting the defence budget would adversely affect the acquisition of additional Iron Dome System units.

The Trajtenberg Committee’s findings were published but so far haven’t been adopted by the government. Netanyahu’s coalition partners want to adjust it to suit their needs.

Professor Trajtenberg cautioned the government that shelving the report would have devastating consequences.

The social justice protesters knew that the Trajtenberg Committee manacled by its constraining mandate couldn’t possibly help them.

An alternative unofficial voluntary committee comprised of a formidable battery of economic faculty heads and experts in social welfare matters assembled to help and advise the protesters.

Economic affairs journalist Meirav Arlosoroff compared the two committees in an article she published recently in Yediot Ahronot

“The Trajtenberg Report and the report issued by experts aiding the protest movement part ways on public spending, the labour market and the need to democratise decision-making.

The differences between the Trajtenberg Report, issued at the behest of the government, and the report issued by experts aiding the protest movement aren't in the principles but in the details, the protesters' experts say. Nevertheless, the details matter: The Trajtenberg Report, they claim, won't change government policy materially.

The reports agree on the main goals and on ways of achieving those goals. But the devil's in the details: They part ways on public spending, the labour market and the need to democratise decision-making.

Both agree on the need to increase social equality and public involvement in the socio-economic discourse. Both also agree on three ways to do that: spend more on social services, reform the labour market and lower the cost of living.

The protesters' experts say the government's civilian expenditure has contracted by 5% of Israel’s GDP; hence the protest. They suggest restoring half of that, paid for by tax hikes. The Trajtenberg Report rejects increased government spending. It suggests expanding public services by cutting defence and other spending, and would increase public spending by only half the amount the protestors demand.

Also, while Trajtenberg focused on education (free day care ), the protesters are more interested in healthcare, housing and welfare.”

A few days before the Tel Aviv municipality wardens swooped down on the tent encampments an editorial in the Jerusalem Post advised the protesters to “fold up their tents.” Without a mentioning why the protesters had camped out the editorial chose to concentrate on the collateral damage caused to the residents near the encampments. Furthermore, the Post pointed out that, “The tent protest is by no means an innovative 2011 concept. “ And then proceeded to list earlier similar protests that yielded few tangible results.

In my prejudiced opinion the editorial was belittling the whole protest phenomenon by accentuating its downside and denying its originality.

The protesters alliance comprised of affordable accommodation seekers, students, parents and other people feeling the pinch of rising prices found a novel way of improving their welfare.

The success of the cottage cheese boycott prompted its initiators to send a letter to food companies' CEOs, demanding across the board 30% price reduction. Protest leader Itzik Elrov said, The days of thinking you can overprice products and the public will just keep on buying them are over.

If they refuse, we shall call on the public to boycott these companies, which undervalue their customers."

Well it seems the boycott threat is effective. The Israeli economic publication Calcalist reported that CEO Zehavit Cohen who headed the Tnuva and Psagot food concerns has resigned. In addition, the Tnuva has decided to reduce the prices of a number of the company’s products.

You will read this letter a few hours before Yom Kippur.

If you are fasting I wish you well over the fast.

Beni 7^th of October, 2011.