Curbing the courts

I suppose I could be described as a law abiding citizen. If you're prepared to overlook two parking infringements perpetrated many years apart, my "rap sheet" is as white as the driven snow.

I have been summoned to court on three occasions, twice as a witness and once as a translator. I respect the law and zealously oppose attempts to manipulate it for ulterior purposes.

A case in point is the proposed judges selection committee bill tabled in the Knesset recently. The bill proposes changing the composition of the committee entrusted with the selection of judges serving on the Supreme Court

A lead article in the Economist last week defined the situation as follows:

"A battle is under way for the control of Israel’s judicial system."

It explains why a lot of people in Israel fear that a move is afoot to make our supreme court subservient to the Knesset.

I'm proud of Israel's judicial system, it's unique and without precedent. It evolved through four hundred years of Ottoman rule, thirty years of the British Mandate and sixty three years of Israeli sovereignty.

Aharon Barak defined Israel's legal system as part of Western legal culture. He is undoubtedly Israel's most distinguished and authoritative legal figure Professor Barak served as judge on Israel's Supreme Court for eleven years. During the last six years of his tenure he was president of the court.

Defining the relationship between the state and the law Aharon Barak says,

” The state's ideology is governed by the rule of law; the basic approach is secular, liberal, and rational. The social system aspires to solve problems by means of law and the courts; law is understood as a concept that ensures social progress and change. The individual has rights as well as obligations."

Perhaps the claim that the proposed change in the composition of the judges selection committee is designed to make our supreme court subservient to our parliament is an exaggeration. Nevertheless, if the legislation is approved it will give the Knesset members of the selection committee the power to appoint "compatible" judges. The Economist described the polarity of the Supreme Court versus the Knesset situation as follows:

"Whereas Israel’s voters have been moving to the nationalist and religious right, most of its top judges have clung to a more liberal and secular view of the world." The author amplifies his nutshell definition, "National-religious politicians have long been riled by the gap in attitudes between Israel’s top judges and the electorate. The Supreme Court is dominated by members of Israel’s 'white tribe' of secular liberal Jews of European origin who founded the state and provided its first elite. Only one of the court’s 13 judges is of Mizrahi, or eastern, origin, and he is set to retire. Another is Orthodox. By contrast, a growing proportion of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, belong to fast-growing communities that are by tradition Orthodox or originate from Arab or Muslim countries—or both."

The proposed selection committee bill is one of a number of legislative proposals tabled recently. All of them target a specific segment of the population. In January 2011, the Knesset endorsed a right-wing proposal to investigate some of Israel's best-known human rights organisations for allegedly slandering the IDF. The investigations would entail inquiries into the funding of several human rights groups that have criticised Israeli policies. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described the Knesset's decision as a "severe blow" to Israeli democracy, and critics labelled the policy "McCarthyist."

The coalition parties have been hounding human-rights groups, which consist mainly of secular left-wingers who often depend on funds from European governments and charities. The cabinet has just endorsed two bills to stop foreign governments from giving grants of more than $5,320 to Israeli human-rights organisations.

The annual budget of the largest Israeli human rights NGO – "B'Tselem" amounts to USD 2, 413,000. Foreign contributions make up half that sum

"Peace Now" operates with an annual budget of USD 940,000. Foreign contributions cover about a third of its budget.

Another bill proposes imposing a tax of 45 percent on contributions to these NGOs.

There are about 20 Israeli human rights and peace promoting NGOs. More than a dozen of them are sporadically active or quite dormant. However, the active NGOs rely on contributions from abroad. Denying them foreign funds won’t kill them off but it will restrict their activities.

At times they annoy me; nevertheless I defend their right to exist.

An editorial in Haaretz aptly sums up the NGO debate. “There is, however, nothing nefarious about public organisations in a democratic country receiving support from other democracies. The NGO funders are not enemies of Israel, and the groups themselves are not trying to subvert the state — only to correct what they see as its flaws. In the case of the illegal settlement construction often reported by Peace Now, or the human rights abuses by the Israeli army chronicled by B’Tselem, the government would be better off responding to rather than suppressing the criticism.”

The news media often refers to the bills collectively claiming they are part of a government “silencing policy.” The tabling of the bills has provoked considerable opposition from Knesset members and even in the cabinet. Legal advisers are warning that the bills are unconstitutional. Admittedly Israel doesn’t have a constitution; nevertheless some of the bills contradict extant legislation termed “Basic Laws.” Prime Minister Netanyahu wavers between supporting the bills and amending them. If need be he can put them “on hold” and threaten to unleash them whenever his critics become too vociferous. However, he is worried about efforts to “delegitimise” Israel. Efforts made by various organisations overseas. If the Knesset passes the "muzzling" bills, anti-Israel groups will be quick to quote them whenever they can.

A proposed amendment to the anti-libel law seeks to raise tenfold the ceiling for libel fines. Another bill threatens to ban Arab footballers who shy from singing our national anthem.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is one of the people who would like to emasculate the High Court of Justice. On Monday Yediot Ahronot columnist Attila Somfalvi said Lieberman threatened to pull his party out of the coalition government if Netanyahu complies with the High Court's demand to demolish the West Bank outpost Migron. Lieberman denied the report but said he opposed evacuating the outpost

Migron has had a checkered history. It is the largest unauthorized settlement in the West Bank and home to approximately 50 families. On August 2nd, 2011, The Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the state to dismantle the outpost by April 2012. This is not the first time the court has instructed the government to dismantle Migron. The current injunction came in response to a petition filed by the "Peace Now" organisation. Supreme Court president Dorit Beinisch wrote, "There is no doubt that according to the law a settlement cannot be built on land privately owned by Palestinians."

Five years ago the Israeli Government, responding to a petition from Palestinians from two West Bank villages claiming to own some of the land upon which Migron is located, concluded that there was never any authorisation from any official granting its establishment. In addition the government admitted the outpost stands on private Palestinian land

According to the Sasson Report of 2005 more than USD 1 million of public funds were improperly invested in the outpost.

The Sasson Report was commissioned by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and was headed by the former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson. People who don't like the report, its conclusions and

Ms. Sasson point out that Talia Sasson was a candidate for the left wing Meretz party in the last Knesset elections. Sasson's political leanings didn’t affect her ability to investigate the legality of the settlements.

Netanyahu and Barak have already asked Judge Beinisch to give them an extension. I doubt if she will agree to put off the dismantling/evacuation of Migron. Benyamin Netanyahu could disregard the April deadline. It won't be the first time a prime minister has "forgotten" to comply with the court's instruction. Netanyahu certainly doesn't want a showdown with his more militant coalition partners and the Judah and Samaria Council over Migron. It seems Migron is quite a migraine. Neither does he want a confrontation with Judge Beinisch . .

Well it looks like I have managed to relate another depressing tale. A story of manipulative legislators trying to manacle a progressive judiciary.

Nevertheless, if we look between the lines it’s possible to see some positive aspects of the struggle between the legislative body and the judicial system.

Peace Now is a mainly Jewish organisation that petitioned the court to obtain justice for Palestinian land owners. It’s not clear how much Migron is built on Arab lands. Just the same the Palestinian petitioners believe an Israeli court can help them. The court has given the government an ultimatum it will find difficult to ignore.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 24^th of November, 2011.

Thoughts in a country graveyard

On Sunday afternoon I went to a funeral here at Ein Harod. I'm not a compulsive funeral-goer, however, living in a tightly-knit community I feel duty bound to go to most funerals. While listening to the eulogies being read I looked beyond the row of Cyprus trees that demarcates the cemetery from the field beyond it. It was a scene Thomas Gray could have described.

Admittedly this shady enclave beside the avocado grove is far removed from Gray’s country churchyard. Our lowing herd never grazes in the lea or leaves the confines of the cow sheds. Moreover the ploughman in the field beyond the Cyprus trees had just turned the last furrow with a reversible double mouldboard plough drawn by a John Deere tractor and had headed home. Just the same, our cemetery has a definite rustic atmosphere.

It was opened forty three years ago and is Ein Harod’s third cemetery. The first cemetery was started near Gideon’s Spring in 1922 and was closed in 1938. The second cemetery is still in use and is a follow-on from the one by the spring. It was opened in Ein Harod Meuchad in 1938. Our current cemetery serves Ein Harod Ihud and was opened because space constrictions in the neighbouring kibbutz required a new burial site.

As the coffin was lowered into the grave I recalled an incident regarding our local Judaism study circle. The circle meets at Kibbutz Geva every Wednesday evening throughout the year except for a recess during the summer . Between two and three hundred people attend the circle’s lectures, most of us are secular Jews. Last week our lecturer Professor Uriel Simon was stuck in a traffic jam at the Megiddo junction. While we were waiting for him to arrive, we passed the time telling jokes, recounting anecdotes and personal experiences. One of our group, a retired drainage engineer, told about an amazing discovery he made a few years ago when he was working with a drainage installation team near Beit Shearim. The trenching machine they were working with struck a hard object. At first they thought it was a rock; however after digging around it they saw that they had unearthed a sarcophagus. They notified the local branch of the Israel antiquities department and a few hours later an archeologist arrived at the site to verify and identify the object they had found. After examining the sarcophagus’ external features he opened the lid hoping to find objects that would help in dating the find. Often damage caused by grave robbers and the ravages of time leave little of interest for the archeologists However in this instance the work team and the archeologist were surprised to find a complete skeleton inside the stone coffin. Later the department of antiquities established that the skeleton was an 18 year old male who had died about 1700-1800 years ago.

News of the sarcophagus reached the rabbi at Kibbutz Sde Eliyahu and he offered to bury the remains of the ancient John Doe in the kibbutz cemetery. When told there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased was Jewish the rabbi replied that even if there was doubt regarding his identity he should be given the benefit of the doubt and a full Jewish burial.

That certainly wasn't a "ground breaking" precedent. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has always been over zealous about burying old bones even when there was clear evidence that the bones belonged to pagans or at the best to Christians. Perhaps the most famous case of post mortem conversions involved the skeletons found at Masada.

The Masada bones discovered by Yigael Yadin between 1963 and 1965 and later given a state burial by the Israeli government were not those of Jewish patriots but Roman soldiers, says Joseph Zias , who was Curator of Archaeology and Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority from 1972 to 1997.

Zias says that Yadin had doubts about the identification of the skeletons, but was coerced by Israeli political leaders to connect the bones with the Masada saga and agree to give them a state funeral.

Likewise, the Israel Antiquities Authority transferred bones exhumed from graves near Ashkelon’s Barzilai Hospital to the Religious Affairs Ministry in May last year . The ancient graves were excavated to prepare for the construction of a new emergency room. Archaeologists dated the graves from the Roman-Byzantine period and said they belonged to pagans.

Another team of archaeologists uncovered tombs near Andromeda Hill in Jaffa earlier this year. The team’s spokesperson said that bones found at the site belong to pagan worshippers and were buried next to domesticated pigs. These bones too (the human bones) were given a Jewish burial.

At the time of the Jerusalem trip I mentioned in a letter two weeks ago we visited the Hinnom shoulder necropolis, burial caves dating back to the time of the First Temple. At that time and later on the poor were buried in the ground and the well-heeled folk were interred in a family crypt, usually a burial cave. The phrase in Judges 2:10 ".. all that generation were gathered unto their fathers…" meaning they had died, has an additional meaning. The crypt or cave was limited in size so the bones of the previous generation were gathered from the stone slabs where the bodies had been placed and stacked in an ossuary, a nearby repository. Ossuaries of this type were found at the Hinnom shoulder necropolis and in other places.

By coincidence Kibbutz Sde Eliyahu in the Beit Shean Valley enters this narrative again. A few weeks ago I was asked to take a couple from the kibbutz to visit the old cemetery by Gideon’s Spring. For many years the cemetery was almost forgotten, I dare to say neglected. It is not a national landmark like the Kinneret cemetery; however it embodies Ein Harod’s early history. The inscriptions on the austere headstones and sometimes the spacing between some of the graves have a special significance. A few years ago it was reopened to serve a nearby community.

Of the 61 graves in the older part of the cemetery 11 of them are children’s graves. The average age of the adults buried there is 25.8 years. The cause of death is usually mentioned on the headstones. Twenty pioneers who committed suicide are buried in the cemetery. Sometimes a blatant “took his own life,” or three initial letters indicate that they killed themselves.

Typhus, malaria, work accidents and other causes account for the rest of the fatalities. The harsh inhospitable conditions that prevailed in the pioneer community combined with the fear of failure, even unrequited love have been attributed as the cause of many of the suicides.

The second and third cemeteries accommodate fewer suicides and less drama.

I set out to avoid the depressing Iranian crisis, local domestic crises like the ongoing doctors strike and other bad news. I now realise that my morbid digression brings little cheer, so I will conclude with a few remarks about Iran.

Repercussions of the mysterious explosion at an Iranian military installation last Saturday reverberated long after the debris and dust had settled.

At first the incident was described as a mishap. However when the name of Brigadier General. Hassan Moghadam, was listed among the people killed in the explosion it was clear that careless handling of munitions wasn't the real cause of the explosion. Until his death Moghadam headed the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) missile development and sections of its nuclear programme.

US blogger Richard Silverstein claims the Mossad in collaboration with the MEK, an Iranian militant opposition group, was behind the explosion.

Time Magazine's man in Jerusalem reported that, "Israeli newspapers on Sunday were thick with innuendo, the front pages of the three largest dailies dominated by variations on the headline "Mysterious Explosion in Iranian Missile Base." Turn the page, and the mystery is answered with a wink. 'Who Is Responsible for Attacks on the Iranian Army?' asks Maariv, and the paper lists without further comment a half-dozen other violent setbacks to Iran's nuclear and military nexus. For Israeli readers, the coy implication is that their own government was behind Saturday's massive blast just outside Tehran. It is an assumption a Western intelligence source insists is correct: the Mossad — the Israeli agency charged with covert operations — did it. "

So far the Israeli government has neither confirmed nor denied claims that the Mossad was involved in the explosion.

When Minister of Defence Ehud Barak was asked by a reporter to comment on the explosion all he said was “I hope there will be more.”

Have a good weekend

Beni 17^th of November, 2011.

Will the balloon go up?

Watching three hot air balloons heading eastward across the Jezreel Valley this morning, another airborne event came to mind. I remembered the clusters of blue and white “party balloons” released from our main lawn on Independence Day many years ago. They drifted eastward to Jordan bringing a message of peace. Eventually peace came, albeit a low profile peace. The brightly coloured fabric of this morning's balloons contrasted sharply with the background of subtle soft mountain and valley tones. A sight of pastoral quiet, far removed from the din of sabre-rattling in Jerusalem and Tehran.

A host of soothsayers claim we shouldn't worry; all the war rhetoric is merely hot air that could fill a balloon or two. It's certainly not a sign that the "balloon is about to go up." For example, Dan Murphy, not the lawmaker, but Christian Science Monitor staff writer says we can rest assured that an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear programme is not likely. Writing a few days before the publication of the IAEA report he said," Israel's fear of a nuclear Iran is understandable. . But it's still hard to see a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities any time soon." Weighing up the pros and cons of a preemptive attack Murphy said, "The risks are high, success is difficult, and whatever hope there may be that the Iranian regime will respond to diplomatic pressure by changing course will evaporate in the wake of a strike. On that basis, it's hard to see Israel making a rational decision to act. That moment, if it ever comes, will probably be driven by the development of an actual Iranian nuclear bomb, and evidence that Iran has the capacity to deliver it to an Israeli city. Warnings of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran have, for years, come and gone with the seasons. In August 2010, Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that in his opinion there was a "greater than 50 percent chance" that Israel would attack Iran by July of 2011. His article attracted a flurry of attention and debate. As it happened, as with all such predictions in the past, the attack didn't happen."

With that in mind I can go ahead and sow lupin seeds in my garden. However maybe I should get a second opinion. The Daily Mail's deputy editor Tim Shipman relying on warnings received from "intelligence chiefs" predicts Israel will launch military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon as soon as Christmas. He claims, "Sources say the understanding at the top of the British Government is that Israel will attempt to strike against the nuclear sites ‘sooner rather than later’ – with logistical support from the U.S. " On the other hand Los Angeles Times correspondent Edmund Sanders, believes the sabre rattling is a ruse to muster more support for stiffer sanctions against Iran. "It's not the first time Israel has hinted it might strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Whisper campaigns about a possible surprise attack have leaked out before and sometimes appear timed to help U.S. efforts to rally international support for sanctions against Tehran.
Reporting from Jerusalem Sanders said, “But the current round of speculation about an airstrike — fueled by recent statements by anonymous Israeli officials and some high-profile missile and military flight tests last week — sparked an unusually public here about whether Israel should take such a step at this time.

What many suspect began as an attempt by Israel to intimidate Iran and motivate the West to do more to crack down on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program has instead inadvertently exposed public ambivalence, government division and a surprising politicization over one of Israel's most pressing security threats.”
An editorial in the New York Times today managed to sum up the dilemma succinctly. “We’re not sure any mix of sanctions and inducements can wean Tehran of its nuclear ambitions. We are sure that a military attack would be a disaster — and the current saber-rattling from Israel should make everyone nervous. A military strike would not set back Iran’s program for very long. It would rally Iranians around their illegitimate government. And it would produce a huge anti-Israeli and anti-American backlash around the world — whether or not Washington had tried to stop it.”

Dr. Ephraim Asculai worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) for over 40 years. In 1986, he went to work at the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)in Vienna on issues of radiation protection. He asks, “Would Iran use its nuclear weapons against another state? The common wisdom is that nuclear weapons serve mainly as deterrents. Many researchers postulate that the Iranian regime is rational and would act accordingly. However, Iranian reasoning and decision making processes demand much more extensive study, and the assumption that Iranian rationality would follow traditional Western assumptions may be unfounded.”

The IAEA report published this week was very well received. Simon Henderson, one of the directors of the Washington Institute said this about the report, “It is a certificate of excellence and courage of the IAEA, led by director general Yukiya Amano, and it puts to shame past reports written by the same organization during the tenure of its Egyptian director general, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei. It's true that in the past two years, since Amano was appointed, the organization has received new evidence and information. However, most of the incriminating evidence was available when El Baradei led the IAEA, but he preferred not to publish the findings, or soften the wording in a way that would confuse the readers and portray Iran in a deceptive light, as if there wasn't conclusive evidence that it was aiming to produce nuclear weapons.

El Baradei, one must add, reiterated his beliefs even in the past few weeks, most notably in an interview with the ‘New Yorker.’"

Henderson concluded, “My hope is that the clear information regarding Iran's secret military nuclear program will persuade the leaders of Russia and China that one can't wait any longer before applying new, more comprehensive sanctions.”

David Remnick referred to the Arab view of the Iran dilemma. Under the title “Iran, Israel, and the Bomb” posted in The New Yorker he wrote, “According to State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks, some Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, might object in public to an Israeli raid but would actually be delighted to see it happen. As the Arab Spring has transformed the region, the Iranians and the Saudis are engaged in a none-too-subtle battle for geo-strategic influence. The Saudis hardly see an Iranian bomb as a threat solely to Israel.”

Military affairs correspondent Ron Ben Yishai echoed the blunt and to the point attitude of the Israeli inner government circle. He said, “Israel’s message to the world – either you stop Iran’s nuclear program, or we will.” And explains further, “The Iranians fully realize that Israel’s top politicians are seriously considering a strike in order to curb or at least delay the Iranian race to the bomb. This is assuming there is no non-military, efficient option to secure this aim.” Nevertheless, Ben Yishai qualified the conditions for a preemptive strike, “The above is contingent upon absolute certainty that Iran has already started to produce the bomb and that all other ways to prevent Tehran from doing so have been exhausted. In this instance, and only in this instance, Israel would have no choice but to thwart the existential threat we face as result of nuclear arms in Iranian hands, even at the price of the casualties and damage to be sustained by Israel as result of Iran’s response (and that of its allies – Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups in Gaza.)” Ron Ben Yishai doesn’t believe a preemptive strike is imminent. “It’s still relatively far off, as according to all estimates the Iranians are not expected to complete their preparations to produce nuclear weapons before 2015. Until that time, harsh global sanctions could force the Iranian leadership to accept a deal with the West that would delay the military nuclear program.”

Philosopher, existential psychoanalyst and publicist Professor Carlo Strenger publishes articles mainly in Haaretz, but also in the New York Times, the Guardian, the Huffington Post and Foreign Policy.

In an article that appeared in Haaretz recently he asked a particularly perplexing question. “Can Israel live with an Iranian bomb?”

Answering the question Strenger claims, “Israel’s security establishment, from the military to intelligence agencies, is spearheading a deep change in Israel’s political culture. It is making clear that the myth that the IDF can do anything if required to do so must no longer be taken for granted. The consensus that emerges in conversations with experts and from reports of various think tanks is fairly clear: While Israel has the capacity to hit some of Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will, at most, set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few years - eighteen months is Aaron David Miller's estimate . What then? If indeed a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel, eighteen months does not provide much comfort. As Miller says, the scenario of Israel attacking Iran every eighteen months is totally unrealistic.”:….”It may well be that Israel will have to get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran. Israel’s public, raised on the notion that the IDF can solve anything, needs to undergo a profound change. We must get used to think in different terms; strategy is about risk management, not about the total elimination of risks. This does not mean that Israel and the Free World should not do what can be done realistically and without catastrophic consequences to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But it means that we must also prepare for life with a nuclear Iran. This is not a defeatist position, it’s just realistic. The U.S. had to learn to live with the Soviet Union going nuclear, and then China. India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, have lived in a standoff and a cold war that flares up periodically for decades. Joining the club of powers that live in a nuclear balance of mutual deterrence may not be our favorite option. But it may help to remember that it is a club that has been in existence for quite some time.”

Have a good weekend.

Beni 10^th of November, 2011.

Cooking bowls and ICBMs

Earlier this week I participated in a tour of archaeological sites in Jerusalem. Among the places we visited was a newly revealed section of the Herodian stepped street. The street leads from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount.

In his "Wars of the Jews" renegade historian Josephus Flavius mentioned an event that followed the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 AD. Some of the Jews who managed to escape from Jerusalem were forced to leave their families behind. These women and children hid in the conduit alongside the stepped street. The conduit, designed to channel rain water away from the street is large enough to hide in. Eventually the fugitives were discovered by the Romans. Some of them were killed while others became slaves and most of them were exiled. For more than two thousand years the conduit and the street were buried under tons of rubble. During the excavation work at that site a part of the conduit was opened up. Inside it the archeologists found a number of earthenware cooking vessels untouched for two millennium . It seems the fugitives left them behind when the Roman soldiers forced them out of their hiding place.

Moving fast-forward to Tuesday this week when the Minister of Defence. Ehud Barak made a veiled reference to our arch-enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran. He reminded the assembled news media people that Israel is by far the strongest power in the region. The "don't mess with us" message was clear and unmistakable, intended for the Iranian government and our second league enemies. It was part of the latest round of sabre-rattling that came in the wake of a report published in the Guardian claiming that Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 missiles and upgrading its sea-based cruise missiles.

Israel has three submarines and two more are under construction in Germany. Israel and Germany are holding talks about the construction of a sixth submarine.

When commenting on sensitive defence related subjects news media people, analysts, politicians and public figures are careful to premise their remarks with the phrase “according to foreign media reports.”

I too, a rank and file citizen preface my comments likewise and say that according to foreign sources Israel's submarines are meant to give Israel a "second strike" nuclear option, meaning that Israel can strike back with nuclear weapons from submarines at hidden locations at sea even if its land based nuclear capability is impaired by an enemy nuclear strike.

If the reports of our upgrade programme are correct they are in line with a general upgrading. According to the same report in the Guardian, the world's nuclear states are planning to spend more than $800 billion in the coming years to modernise and upgrade their nuclear arsenals. The United States itself will spend $700 billion dollars on such projects. Other countries planning to invest in upgrading their nuclear arsenals are Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France and Britain.

In the past our governments’ verbal sabre-rattling was answered measure for measure by the Iranians. However, so far the Iranians only warned of dire consequences for the perpetrators of any attack on Iran.

Ehud Barak’s remarks sparked off a considerable internal debate involving the news media , fellow cabinet ministers and political opponents. Any comment on the Iranian topic is bound to have far-reaching repercussions in both Jerusalem and Teheran. Even Benny Begin’s angry retort that irresponsible government statements are dangerous and counterproductive aggravated the debate further. Ironically they swelled the volume of official declarations provoking a round of counter remarks.

I don’t know if the report in the Guardian really caused so much comment

MSNBC provided an interesting slant on this topic “An Israeli official(unnamed of course) said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program — a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.

It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to focus on the Iranian programme at a meeting later this month. The West wants to set a deadline for Iran to start cooperating with an agency probe of suspicions that Tehran is secretly experimenting with components of a weapons programme.

The Guardian followed up with another Iran related report. This time the paper claimed that Britain's armed forces are considering contingency options to back up possible missile strikes by the U.S. on key Iranian facilities. Military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

Commenting on Israel’s much publicised debate on countering the Iranian threat MSNBC said, “Israeli leaders have said they favor a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians.

In a speech to parliament this week, Netanyahu said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a ‘dire threat’ to the world and ‘a grave, direct threat on us, too.’

His hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was dismissive of the reports but added: ‘We are keeping all the options on the table.’

The government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, told The Associated Press that the option is now being debated at the highest levels.

The official confirmed a report Wednesday in Haaretz that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both favor an attack, but do not yet have the support of a majority of Cabinet ministers. The official also said Israel's top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and the Mossad oppose military action.

It is generally understood that such a momentous decision would require a Cabinet decision. Israel's 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor was preceded by a Cabinet vote.”

Speculation regarding the attack option increased on Wednesday following the successful test of an advanced long-range Israeli missile, presumed to be the latest version of the Jericho missile. In addition news of a recent joint Israeli and Italian air force exercise conducted last week in Sardinia for the purpose of testing long range flights, tended to make the speculation more credible. The fact that both the missile test and the air force exercise had been planned months ago, were disregarded by the speculation mongers.

Clearly, attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is fraught with difficulties and dangers. A war game conducted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, part of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, (described as a center-left think tank,) appears to dampen hopes for a simple solution to Iran's real-world nuclear challenge. The McClatchy Washington Bureau quoted a few conclusions from the war game. The given scenario is a go it alone pre-emptive Israeli attack. In the game the strike is successful, wiping out six of Iran's key sites and setting back its suspected quest for a bomb by years.

“ The U.S. president and his National Security Council try to keep the crisis from escalating. That sours U.S.-Israeli relations, already stressed by the fact that Israel didn't inform Washington in advance of the strike. The White House tries to open a channel for talks with Iran, but is rejected.

Instead, Iran attacks Israel, both directly and through its proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It misinterprets U.S. actions as weakness and mines the Straits of Hormuz, the world's chief oil artery. That sparks a clash and a massive U.S. military reinforcement in the Persian Gulf.”

Some of the people who acted the sides in the game played late last year are quick to point out that war games are imperfect mirrors of reality. “How Iran's notoriously opaque and fractious leadership would react in a real crisis is particularly hard to divine,” admitted the Saban Center for Middle East Policy researchers.

Israel’s dilemma is unenviable. It can’t ignore Ahmadinejad’s threat to wipe it off the map. Iran’s unrelenting efforts to develop nuclear weapons can’t be left unchallenged. On the other hand an attack that doesn’t destroy Iran’s ability to counter attack would be disastrous for Israel.

I mentioned the women and children hiding in the conduit by the Herodian stepped street because that was arguably the most devastating point in Jewish history. Admittedly there were survivors and another major revolt, but it marked a low point in our history. Their cooking bowls trapped in a time capsule are a tangible reminder of their plight. A plight that stands in sharp contrast to Israel’s present situation. We have plenty of problems, many of them of our own making. Nevertheless, Israel is a force to be reckoned with.

Even if it’s difficult to divine how Ahmadinejad will react, he too faces a similar dilemma.

No good news this week. Just the same, ignore the gloom and have a good weekend.

Beni 3^rd of November, 2011.

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.