Thursday, March 01, 2012

Politics – February 2012

 
Support is sought to facilitate the work of the Middle East Study Group. Information at http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/mestudygroup/informationfordonors.aspx

 
I also welcome promoting the two-state solution. See http://www.hull.ac.uk/rca/campaigns.html

 
Peace in the Middle East requires vision and boldness.

 
Peace is a precious commodity. Like any other precious commodity it is expensive. Those who wish peace should be willing to pay and sacrifice for it.

 
~Raphael Cohen-Almagor

 
  
Iran
Two-State Solution
Israel’s Control of Palestinian Residency in the West Bank and Gaza
Syria
Syria-Iran-Hamas
Korea on Track for Nuclear, FTA Deals with Turkey
Israel and Germany Signed a Deal for Nuke-Ready Sub
Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen on Security
The Weakening of the IDF and Israel’s Economy
President Obama State of the Union Address
Governor Mitt Romney on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Survey: Increase in Attachment to Jewish Religion and Tradition
Historic Visit to Cyprus
Supporting Physician-assisted Suicide
Visitors at the University of Hull – Professor Sir Adam Roberts
Nominate a woman for Courage in Journalism Awards
Whitney Houston
My Reprinted Article
New Books
Movie of the Month – Mother and Child (2009)
Monthly Poem
AcroBallet
Old Jaffa
Light Side – British Humour

 

 
Iran

 
I received many comments about my idea of arranging a religious summit between Israeli and Iranian sages. Most of them were favourable. I have written to President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging them to exhaust this option and to explore it fully. I have also written to Ronen Bergman, a prominent Yedioth Ahronoth columnist, asking him to promote this idea as he sees fit.

 
Professor Robert O’Neill wrote from Australia:

 
Dear Rafi,
Thank you for another stimulating edition of Politics! It is uplifting to know that there are some sensible people in the debate on Iran, nuclear weapons and the possible use of force by Israel and the US! I am afraid too many people who are committed on the side of using force do not see that it will not just be a matter of bombing. This will not put an end to the Iranian program by itself. Invasion and direct take-over would be necessary to secure that objective. Israel cannot do that, so that leaves the US - which is in poor condition to undertake such a massive undertaking, and they could well fail as I think they have done in Iraq already, and will do in Afghanistan. This is not the nineteenth century when a western power like Britain or France could move into a country in Asia and stay there for decades!

 
All the best for the month ahead!

 
Bob

 

 
I highly recommend Ronen Bergman’s piece “Will Israel Attack Iran?” in the New York Times (January 25, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/T/Terrorism?ref=terrorism&pagewanted=print

 

 
Two-State Solution

 


 
I continue my campaign for a two-state solution. The past few weeks I delivered lectures in Hull and London. The Hull Middle East Study Group endorses the two-state solution. See http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/me-study-group.aspx

 
I am in touch with the Geneva Initiative, and Yachad, two organizations committed to the promotion of a two-state solution.

 
On February 22, 2012, I was invited to speak on “The Failed Peace Process in the Middle East” at the University of Reading. I thank Professor Andy Knapp for the kind invitation.

 
I was also invited to speak on “In Internet’s Way: Jihadism on the Free Highway” at The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London. I thank Professor Avrom Sherr for his kind invitation.

 
I am happy to receive invites to explain the two-state solution and its importance for peace in the Middle East.

 

 
Israel’s Control of Palestinian Residency in the West Bank and Gaza

 


 
Like Old Cato, I have been saying for years that the occupation needs to stop, NOW!! It is horrible, inhumane, vile. On February 5, 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a new report http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0212webwcover.pdf that exposes the ways in which Israel controls immigration and nationality in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) through the population registry, which it established in September 1967. The first census conducted upon its establishment resulted in the exclusion of at least 270,000 people. In another wave, Israel excluded a further 130,000 West Bank Palestinians who stayed abroad for long periods of time, between 1967 and 1994. In 2000, Israel effectively ‘froze’ the registry’s functions altogether and prevented the Palestinian authorities from issuing identity and travel documents or updating information for residents of the OPT.

 
The report details Israel’s policies and practices since the beginning of its occupation of Palestinian territory with respect to the control of population and movement in and outside of the occupied territory – including removal of individuals from the population registry, denial of child registration and denial of residency in the West Bank for Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. The implementation of these policies have resulted in the depopulation of large groups of Palestinians.

 
The report holds that Israel’s policies violate the rights to freedom of movement, including the right to choose one’s place of residence, and the right to family life (or family unity as stated in the report). It further states that these policies violate the rights to a nationality and the prohibition of collective punishment, due to their sweeping character and indiscriminate effects. In its final section, the report briefly discusses Israel’s authority under the law of occupation, recalling the limits placed by the international law of belligerent occupation on an Occupying Power’s ability to administer and implement changes in the daily life of the occupied territory. The law strictly prohibits an occupier from undertaking adjustments in the life of the occupied territory that would outlive the occupation. Premised on a conservational purpose, the law of belligerent occupation is there to ensure that an occupier does not transcend its administrator-type mandate and does not use the slogan of ‘the benefit of the local population’ as a pretext for a hidden agenda. Controlling the population in the occupied territory by regulating immigration and nationality, and granting or revoking citizenship and permanent residency, not only resembles the powers of sovereign governments, but most pressingly has the effect of changing the demographic composition in the territory, which is also perpetuated through the continuous expansion of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territory.

 
HRW Middle East director stated, on occasion of the publication of the report, “Israel had not put forth any concrete security rationale for blanket policies.” It can be added that however serious the security rationale may be, there is no rationale that would allow Israel to legally implement blanket policies of the kind it does by controlling the registry and effectively rendering it defunct. In all cases, such measures cannot include expulsions from the occupied territory, which are absolutely prohibited. At most, it could use security measures when a real necessity for this can be shown on the basis of the specific merits of the case, particularly in order to prevent measures taken under the guise of security, which actually result in the suppression and punishment of the local population.

 

 
Syria

 
On February 4, 2012, Russia and China vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian government’s crackdown on protests for the second time. At the meeting in Manhattan, 13 countries voted for the resolution proposed by European and Arab nations that gave strong support to an Arab League plan to end the crackdown and call for President Bashar al-Assad to step aside. But Russia and China both vetoed the measure.

 
“What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council?” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fumed at a news conference in Munich. “To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria.”

 
Responding to the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, who asked, “What’s the endgame?” Mrs. Clinton replied: “The endgame in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war.”

 


 
The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who rarely weighs in on Security Council decisions, called the vote “a great disappointment.”

 
“It undermines the role of the United Nations and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people,” he said in a statement.

 
He said the vote made it “even more urgent” for the international community to seek a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic system.

 
The world needs more conscientious people to lead it forward. Unbelievable to see how Assad is bombing his own cities, his own people. We should have a Clinton-like leader who cannot sleep watching it.

 
Putin, the great defender of totalitarian regimes, must go. He defends Assad because democracy in Syria promotes democracy in Russia. I wonder whether it can promote democracy in China.

 
Another issue, of course, is economic/financial interest. Russia and Syria have close economic, business and military ties. Syria has increased its weapons purchases from Russia, including a deal late last year for Yak-130 light attack planes worth more than $550 million. From 2007 to 2010, the value of Russian arms deals with Syria more than doubled — to $4.7 billion from $2.1 billion — compared with 2003 to 2006.

 
During the same period, the value of Russia’s weapons deals with Iran fell to $300 million from $2.1 billion.

 
A Russian naval station at Tartus, in northern Syria, is its only military installation outside of the former Soviet territories. There are numerous other economic and cultural bonds, including the presence of Russian companies working in oil and natural gas in Syria, as well as a proposal for the state-owned nuclear energy company, Rosatom, to build a power plant there. Other Russian companies have interests in agriculture, irrigation and telecommunications in Syria.

 
Meanwhile, the killing continues. 103 people were reported dead on Friday, February 24, 2012.

 
It is difficult to understand why the Obama administration chooses not to intervene in Syria. How does the Obama administration distinguish between Syria and Libya? Why does the extraordinary violation of human rights in the latter justify international intervention whereas the massacre of innocent civilians in the former does not? Pressing these questions, Professor Amos Guiora argues that deciphering the president's policy is proving as complicated as establishing international standards justifying intervention. However, while the former can be subject to continuous academic debate, the human rights violations that define Syria today cannot be addressed by mere rhetoric, even if forceful. President Obama has an opportunity to apply the principles of international humanitarian intervention in a manner that will restore confidence in his leadership and set a clear example of consistency and stability. That is particularly important in a region of the world that is, at the moment, a most dangerous powder keg of extraordinary instability and danger. See http://jurist.org/forum/2012/02/amos-guiora-syria-intervention.php

 
Assad should be blind not reading the bloody writing on his wall. The world's patience is eroding while the Syrian people exhibit tremendous stamina and resilience.

 
See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/world/middleeast/syria-homs-death-toll-said-to-rise.html?emc=na ;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/world/middleeast/for-russia-and-syria-bonds-are-old-and-deep.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22

 

 
Syria-Iran-Hamas

 
Democratic forces join together in the Arab world to bring change. Yesterday’s friends are turning into foes. Interesting developments that change the political map of the Middle East are taking place.

 
Hamas is no longer out of favor in Egypt.

 
Hamas no longer supports the Assad regime.

 
Ipso facto, the relationships between Hamas and Iran are endangered. This is true as long as Iran supports Assad. Iran had been the main financial supporter for the Hamas government in Gaza. Without the Iranian money Hamas would have never been able to pay its 45,000 government employees.

 
There are signs that Hamas seeks to align itself with the democratic-Muslim forces in the Arab world.

 
On February 24, 2012, Hamas’s prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, spoke out against President Bashar al-Assad, throwing its support behind the opposition and stripping Damascus of what little credibility it may have retained with the Arab street. It was Hamas’s first public break with its longtime patron.

 
Haniya said during Friday Prayer in Cairo: “I salute all people of the Arab Spring, or Islamic winter, and I salute the Syrian people who seek freedom, democracy and reform.”

 
During the years in which Syria supported Hamas, Egypt’s leaders were hostile to Hamas, treating it as a despised relative of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was also tagged an outlaw and banned. Mr. Haniya’s remarks in Egypt served as another measure of how much has changed since popular uprisings began to sweep the region, removing President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and now trying to topple Mr. Assad.

 
Mr. Haniya’s comments confirmed a distance between Hamas and Damascus that emerged several weeks ago when the group’s leadership abandoned its longtime base in Syria as the environment there became more violent. Hamas also recently allowed residents of Gaza to stage protests against Mr. Assad and in support of the uprising.

 
In Cairo, as Mr. Haniya spoke, the crowds also shouted against Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, both of which continue to support the Syrian dictator and have long been hailed on the Arab street for remaining defiant toward Israel. That was yet another significant shift caused by the Arab uprisings. “No Iran, no Hezbollah. Syria is Islamic,” protesters chanted.

 
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/hamas-leader-supports-syrian-opposition.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22&pagewanted=print

 

 
Korea on Track for Nuclear, FTA Deals with Turkey

 
President Lee Myung-bak and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to resume cooperation on nuclear power projects worth US$20 billion. As part of that effort, a consortium of SK Engineering and Construction and Korea South-East Power will sign a memorandum of understanding with Turkey's state-run Electricity Generation Company (EUAS) to build a power plant in Afsin-Elbistan region.

 
A Cheong Wa Dae official said Turkey "led negotiations in a way that induced competition between Korea and Japan" and talks came to a halt because the conditions set out by Turkey "did not meet international standards." But after the massive accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant last year, Turkey asked to resume negotiations.

 
Lee and Erdogan, who met for lunch in Istanbul, also agreed to conclude a bilateral free-trade agreement (FTA) in the first half of this year. "Although the two sides do not disagree on the products to be included in the FTA talks, there is some disagreement in the service and investment sectors," the Cheong Wa Dae official said. "However, we believe that the negotiations will go smoothly so it is highly likely that the FTA will be inked in the first half of this year."

 
There have been three rounds of negotiations since the FTA talks started in 2010. Turkey is particularly keen on the FTA because it has a massive trade deficit with Korea. Last year, exports to Turkey stood at $5.08 million and imports at only $800 million.

 
Source: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/02/06/2012020601292.html

 

 
Israel and Germany Signed a Deal for Nuke-Ready Sub

 
Israel signed a deal to acquire a sixth nuclear-capable submarine from Germany. Under the agreement inked in recent weeks, Berlin would pay some of the expense of the Dolphin-class submarine.

 
"The security of the state of Israel is a German concern and this will not change," Secretary of State for Defense Christian Schmidt said. Israel has already acquired three Dolphin-class vessels from Germany. An additional two submarines are being built, according to earlier reports.

 


 
It is not known if Israel intends to equip the submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Jerusalem abides by a longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons (United Press International, February 5, 2012).

 

 
Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen on Security

 
Heads of Shabac rarely give public talks, thus whenever they do it is always an important occasion to be noticed. Yoram Cohen recently spoke publicly about the security situation and provided interesting insights.

 
Cohen said that Iran is trying to strike Israeli targets around the world in a bid to stop the assassinations of its nuclear scientists. Iran believes Israel is behind the attacks on its nuclear experts, which have killed four scientists since November 2010. "It doesn't matter if it's true or not that Israel took out the nuclear scientists," Cohen said. "A major, serious country like Iran cannot let this go on. They want to deter Israel and extract a price so that decision makers in Israel think twice before they order an attack on an Iranian scientist."

 


 
"Over the past year three serious attacks were thwarted that were on the verge of being carried out," the Shin Bet head said. "In Turkey against the general consul in Istanbul; in Baku, Azerbaijan; and two weeks ago in Thailand."

 
Cohen also said that over the past 18 months, Iran has distanced itself from Hamas and invested more in Islamic Jihad in Gaza, because the Iranians "realized that Hamas has political considerations.”

 
Israel's main dilemma in the coming year, Cohen added, was how to stop Palestinian terror groups in Gaza from obtaining rockets that could reach the metropolitan Tel Aviv area, but without becoming embroiled in a large-scale military action in Gaza.

 
Cohen said the terror groups' main goal was to increase the range of their missiles to the greater Tel Aviv area, as well as their precision and the size of their warheads.

 
Cohen said missile experts from abroad were now in Gaza helping Hamas and Islamic Jihad increase the range of the missiles, but conceded that this put Israeli security experts in a difficult place.

 
The situation in the south has grown worse due to conditions in Sinai. "It's no problem to shoot from Sinai at Israeli planes or ships... At the moment, Egypt can't take control of the situation because of internal difficulties."

 
Israel is "in a dilemma over what to do if squads are spotted that are about to attack us from the area of a country with which we have a peace treaty, but has been having difficulty implementing their sovereignty," Cohen said.

 
During the hour-long lecture, Cohen also discussed the attitude of the security establishment toward Israel's Arab community: "They are not a fifth column and we don't consider them as such... We relate to them as a Palestinian public that identifies with their brethren in Judea and Samaria."

 
Israeli-Arab involvement in terror has declined. Over the past year, there had been only three terror attacks in which Israeli Arabs had been involved: "We arrested 20 to 30 Arab Israelis last year, as opposed to 2,000 Palestinians from Judea and Samaria. The problems with Arab Israelis are complex, but they are not security problems. They are alienation, integration, employment, poor municipal management, crime and drugs”.

 
"The ideological leadership of the Arab public in Israel," Cohen continued, "is much more extreme than the public, and sometimes pulls in directions with which the public does not identify."

 
Jewish terrorism: Another group that feels growing alienation from the state is the faction in the religious public that has lost confidence in its leadership. Cohen said these were a few dozen extremists, mainly from the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, one of the strongholds of the Kach-Kahane movement.

 
"They have decided to take the road of terror... because they can't harm the government and the Israel Defense Forces, they lash out at Arabs and [their] sacred symbols. To their mind, the worse it gets, the more the government will have to think before it destroys a shack in a settlement. We treat this as terror."

 
Cohen said the Shin Bet (Shabac) was trying to deal with Jewish terror "in the best way possible," and noted that the past two months had seen a significant decline in violence by the group.

 
With regard to the Palestinians, Cohen said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not want to negotiate with Israel, because Abbas believes the current government will offer no more than what he had received from previous regimes: "They see what the boundaries of the prime minister's flexibility are and who makes up the coalition, and they know the maximum this government will offer will not reach their minimum." Therefore, he added, the international community was focusing its efforts on preventing escalation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

 
Source: Barak Ravid, “Shin Bet chief: Iran trying to hit Israeli targets in response to attacks on nuclear scientists”, Haaretz (February 3, 2012), http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/shin-bet-chief-iran-trying-to-hit-israeli-targets-in-response-to-attacks-on-nuclear-scientists-1.410686

 

 
The Weakening of the IDF and Israel’s Economy

 
In 1948, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion who cared greatly about the unity of the emerging nation agreed to exempt Yeshiva students from army service. At the time, 400 Yeshiva students were exempted.

 
Since then, the Israeli population grew by 1200%, and the number of Yeshiva students grew by 15,000%. In 2010, 62,500 Yeshiva students were exempted from serving in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). One of eight young Israeli men is now being exempted from army service. The prediction is that in 2023, 25% (one in four) of young men will be exempted from service due to their Yeshiva studies.

 
According to Hiddush, an NGO that compiles these data, only one of two Israelis is now drafted for army service. Those who do not serve include Haredi people, Arabs, and women who testify that they are religious, or married women. Some women marry in order to avoid the draft.

 
At present, one of four Jewish men does not serve in the IDF. 25% of men do not serve. These include ultra-religious (Haredi) men, men exempted due to health issues, and incompatible men. The ultra-religious men do not work either; instead they “kill themselves in the tent of Torah”. The toll on the IDF is heavy, as those who do serve are required to work harder. The pressure is more severe on the reserves. Fewer people are now carrying army duties.

 
The toll on the Israeli economy is heavy as well, as the Haredi population does not work, and does not use contraceptives. Their families are large and receive subsistence from the government. As the Haredi population is growing fast, the challenge is likely to grow significantly.

 

 
President Obama's State of the Union Address

 
On January 25, 2012, President Barack Obama delivered the annual State of the Union address. Here is what he said about the Middle East, Iran and Israel. I have highlighted some of the statements:

 


 
That’s the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years. Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America. (Applause.)

 
From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America. (Applause.)

 
As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qaddafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators -– a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed, and that human dignity cannot be denied. (Applause.)

 
How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it’s ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings –- men and women; Christians, Muslims and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty. And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests.

 
Iran

 
Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)

 
But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

 
Global Influence

 
The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. (Applause.)

 
Now go and check how many countries President Obama mentioned in his State of the Union Address, and how many of them are mentioned favourably.

 
You can read, and hear, President Obama’s address at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-video-transcript.html

 

 
Governor Mitt Romney on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 
Election years are good for Israel. Candidates usually compete who is more supportive of Israel. On January 26, 2012, Governor Mitt Romney said that the Palestinians are not interested in a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather that they are interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.

 
The leading candidate in the race to become the Republican candidate for presidency maintained: "Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution. It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the state of Israel.” Romney went on to say that “whether it's in the political discourse that is spoken either from Fatah or from Hamas, there is a belief that the Jewish people do not have the right to have a Jewish state."

 


 
"I believe the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say we stand with our friend Israel; we are committed to a Jewish state in Israel; we will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally Israel."

 
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/romney-palestinians-don-t-want-two-state-solution-they-want-to-eliminate-israel-1.409459

 

 
Survey: Increase in Attachment to Jewish Religion and Tradition

 
There are two things that I wish for the future of Israel: Peace with its neighbours, which I believe is only achievable through compromise, reconciliation, and finding a modus vivendi with the Arabs; and separation between religion and state. I am more optimistic regarding the former than achieving the latter.

 


 
In 2009, a comprehensive survey was conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute's Guttman Center for Surveys and the Avi Chai Foundation about "Beliefs, Observance and Values among Israeli Jews". Its results were released on January 26, 2012. This is the third comprehensive survey to examine religiosity in Israel. The two previous surveys were conducted in 1999 and 1991. Here are some of its findings:

 
85 percent of respondents said that "celebrating the Jewish holidays as prescribed by religious tradition" was "important" or "very important," up from 63 percent in 1999, while 70 percent said they "always" or "frequently" refrained from eating hametz (leavened bread ) on Passover, up from 67 percent in 1999.

 
80 percent of Israeli Jews believe that God exists - the highest figure found since 1991.

 
70 percent of respondents believe the Jews are the "Chosen People".

 
61 percent of respondents said the state should "ensure that public life is conducted according to Jewish religious tradition," up dramatically from 44 percent in 1991. But respondents also insisted on preserving their freedom of choice. Between 58 and 68 percent said that shopping centers, public transportation, sporting events, cafes, restaurants and movie theaters should be allowed to operate on Shabbat (figures ranged from 58 percent for shopping centers to 68 percent for cafes, restaurants and movie theaters).

 
65 percent believe the Torah and mitzvot (religious commandments ) are God-given.

 
56 percent believe in life after death.

 
55 percent said they believe in the coming of the Messiah, up from 45 percent in 1999 but similar to 53 percent in 1991.

 


 
51 percent responded "yes," "absolutely yes" or "perhaps yes" when asked if they favored the introduction of civil marriage in Israel. Those in the first two categories, at 48 percent, were down from 54 percent in 1999 but up from 39 percent in 1991.

 
46 percent of Israeli Jews define themselves as secular, down from 52 percent in 1999, while 22 percent define themselves as either Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, up from 16 percent in 1999. The remaining 32 percent term themselves traditional, virtually unchanged from 1999.

 
Only 44 percent said that if Jewish law and democratic values clashed, the latter should always be preferred, while 20 percent said Jewish law should always be preferred and 36 percent said "sometimes one and sometimes the other." In other words, the decline in attachment to democratic values continues. Less than half of Israeli Jews think that, in a clash between Jewish law and democracy, democratic values should always prevail.

 
37 percent said that "a Jew who does not observe the religious precepts endangers the entire Jewish people," up from 30 percent in 1999 but similar to the 1991 figure of 35 percent.

 
Overall, the survey found an increase in attachment to Jewish religion and tradition from 1999 to 2009, following a decrease from 1991 to 1999, which was the decade of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union.

 
The study's authors cited two reasons for the rise in religiosity. One is that immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who contributed to the drop in religiosity from 1991 to 1999, have now assimilated into Israeli society. Various studies have found that this process of assimilation has resulted in Soviet immigrants becoming more traditional. The second reason is the demographic change caused by the higher Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox birthrates.

 
When individuals were asked about how their own attitudes had changed over the previous decade, the number of those that said they felt more religious and were more careful about observing the Sabbath and kashrut was higher than the number of those who said they had become more secular.

 
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/survey-record-number-of-israeli-jews-believe-in-god-1.409386

 

 
Historic Visit to Cyprus

 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid a historic visit to Cyprus on February 16, 2012, aiming to strengthen the "natural relationship" between the two countries.

 
The visit was the first ever by an Israeli leader to the nearby island nation, which along with Israel has natural gas interests in the Mediterranean and is coping with rising tensions with Turkey. Hours before Netanyahu's arrival, the Turks threatened to halt Nicosia from exploring in waters that Ankara says do not belong to Cyprus.

 
"I came here to develop our bilateral ties, our economic ties and ties in the field of energy," Netanyahu said after talks with Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias. "We're interested in developing peaceful relations for the benefit of our two countries and the region as a whole."

 


 
The two leaders discussed cooperation in energy matters, agriculture and tourism. They signed an agreement to offer reciprocal aid in search and rescue missions at sea. Israel was also exploring the possibility of building a joint pipeline with Cyprus to export some of the offshore gas deposits to Europe and Asia.

 
Although Cyprus is only a 50-minute flight away from Tel Aviv, ties between the two have long been chilly. Nicosia has long backed the Palestinians in their quest for an independent state and looked on warily as Israel built military and trade relations with regional powerhouse Turkey, which doesn't recognize Cyprus as a sovereign state and has occupied its north since 1974.

 
Another bridge between Israel and Cyprus has been the discovery of huge offshore natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean Sea. The same U.S. company, Noble Energy, is leading the exploration efforts in both countries. It estimates finds of more than 25 trillion cubic meters in Israeli waters and up to 230 billion cubic meters in Cypriot waters.

 
Turkey opposes any Greek Cypriot oil and gas search that denies breakaway Turkish Cypriots what it contends is a rightful claim to gas wealth. And it has dismissed a Cypriot-Israeli deal demarcating their maritime borders as null and void.

 
Cyprus was split into an internationally recognized Greek-speaking south and a breakaway Turkish-speaking north in 1974 after Turkey invaded following a coup attempt by supporters of union with Greece.

 
The rupture with Turkey and the rise of Islamic parties in the wake of the Arab Spring have made Israel more vulnerable in a region already hostile to the Jewish state and forced it to look for other alliances. Cyprus' EU membership, proximity and own gas wealth potential make the island a natural ally for an increasingly isolated Israel.

 
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-leader-pays-historic-visit-cyprus-072656918.html

 

 
Supporting Physician-assisted Suicide

 
For many years, I have been supporting physician-assisted suicide provided that some guidelines are cautiously followed so as to prevent abuse. I think it is a terrible situation that citizens of the United Kingdom need to leave their home, and here “my home is my castle”, and travel to a foreign land to seek help. Some 115 Britons who wanted to decide the time of their death had to travel to Switzerland where they were helped to die. The British authorities are embarrassed. They understand that this death-tourism is the result of insufficient legal instruments to enable sick people, at the end of their lives, to die at home at the time of their choice. A change is in need. Polls consistently show that between seventy and eighty percent of the population support physician-assisted suicide but the British legislature has been hesitant.

 


 
This is the cover of my best book to date, published in 2001

 
Recently, a long-awaited report by the Commission on Assisted Dying has recommended an end to the criminalisation of assisted suicide in specific cases. The Commission recommended that if an individual is 18 years or older and has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and they have the mental capacity to make an informed choice unimpaired by mental health problems such as depression and free of the influence of others, then they should have the right to request an assisted death.

 
Central to the legal framework proposed by the commission are a number of safeguards, with health workers central to their implementation: “The system that we propose would have at its centre skilled professionals who can assess those who request an assisted death to confirm their diagnosis, explore their reaction to and understanding of their health condition, the motivation for their request, the voluntariness of their choice and their decision-making capacity”, they write.

 
Each request for an assisted death would have to be approved by at least two independent doctors, one of whom would be legally responsible for ensuring that the person has a settled intention to die, meets the eligibility criteria, and has a reliable and supported assisted death. However, the commission also recommends that any health-care professional should be able to opt out of providing support for an assisted death. “Ethical perspectives on the issue of assisted dying remain polarised and it is extremely unlikely this issue could ever be resolved in a way that was satisfactory to all parties”, they conclude. “Ultimately the question of whether a legal framework for assisted dying should be introduced in the UK must be for Parliament to decide on behalf of the people.”

 
See The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9810, 7–13 January 2012, page 15.

 

 
Visitors at the University of Hull – Professor Sir Adam Roberts

 
On February 15-16, 2012, I hosted Professor Sir Adam Roberts, President of the British Academy, who delivered two talks: "Revolution and Crisis in British Academia", and “Civil Resistance in the Arab Spring”. The first was a university lecture; the second in the University of Hull Middle Eastern Study Group (MESG). Both were thought-provoking and enriching lectures that stimulated interest and debate.

 


 
In The Arab Spring Lecture, Sir Adam said Rousseau had over-simplified when he implied that removing the chains imposed by a dictator would automatically make people free. Removing a dictatorship does not necessarily lead to democracy. It takes a long process that starts with the removal of the tyrant but requires further significant effort to see that the vile regime is replaced with one that is based on liberty and other democratic values.

 
Asked how to explain that the revolutions took place in those countries and no others in the Arab world let alone in South America and other parts of Africa where we find many authoritarian, corrupt regimes, Sir Adam answered that a combination of several factors led to the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria: diverse society, ideological crisis, and proximity to the democratic world, so that the people know that it is possible for them to lead a very different way of life that is not entirely foreign to them.

 
Asked about the situation in Syria, where many segments of the population are determined to replace the Assad regime and prepared to pay a high price and, at the same time, Assad is equally determined to remain in power and to exact a price from his people, Sir Adam said that this was a sobering case in which civil resistance, relying on non-violent means of struggle, was in process of leading to internal armed conflict. Asked specifically whether international military intervention in Syria was a possibility, he said that Turkey might intervene, especially if more refugees should attempt to cross the borders into Turkey. A large influx of refugees might pressure Turkey to intervene in Syria. Sir Adam also said that he does not rule out UN peace keeping forces being sent to Syria. He said that he does not foresee American intervention as they had enough in Iraq and Afghanistan and are now adopting a much more cautious approach to military involvement in distant societies without the explicit consent of the country's government. The Rumsfeld approach is now over.

 
As always, it was good to see Adam. I am happy he was able to come and deliver these talks. And I am always happy to welcome friends and colleagues in Yorkshire.

 

 
Nominate a woman for Courage in Journalism Awards

 
The International Women's Media Foundation (IWMF) is seeking nominations for its 2012 Courage in Journalism Awards, which honour women reporters around the world whose work puts them in danger. The deadline for nominations is 2 March 2012.

 
The Courage in Journalism Awards (of US$5,000 apiece) will honour three women working in the news media who have risked political persecution, physical injury and death in their efforts to expose corruption and champion human rights.

 
Plus, the Lifetime Achievement Award recognises a woman journalist who has a pioneering spirit and a strong commitment to press freedom, and whose determination has paved the way for future generations of women in the media.

 
Candidates for both awards can be full-time, part-time or freelance women journalists working in print, broadcast or online media in any country. Candidates for the Lifetime Achievement Award can be retired journalists.

 
You can nominate at: http://www.ifex.org/international/2012/02/08/iwmf_courage_in_journalism/

 

 
Whitney Houston

 
On February 12, 2012, I was saddened to hear about the tragic and premature death of Whitney Houston. Her great voice will live forever. Here is a reminder of Ms. Houston's incredible voice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyQdCJwJZck&feature=related

 


 
Ms. Houston seemed to have it all: Talent, charisma, beauty, a character filled with life, great smile, zest, energy and immense charm. What she did not have is the right company. I danced to her songs, sang her songs, loved her voice. I will continue to do so.

 
Top 10 Whitney Houston Songs Of All Time, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otbOPcPXZqY

 

 
My Reprinted Article

 
R. Cohen-Almagor and Sharon Haleva-Amir, “The Israel-Hezbollah War and the Winograd Committee”, in Athina Karatzogianni (ed.), Violence and War (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012).

 
This is a reprinted version of the article originally published in Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law, Vol. II:1 (2008), pp. 113-130.

 
“Raphael Cohen-Almagor and Sharon Haleva-Amir in ‘The Israel-Hezbollah War and the Winograd Committee’ examine the internal politics and international implications of assigning blame for the Olmert government’s handling of the war with Hezbollah, and criticise the establishment of the committee and the results it reached, as a mockery of justice and a travesty of social responsibility. In a rich empirical analysis, Cohen-Almagor and Haleva-Amir, argue that the Israeli government responded hastily and without much thinking to the Hezbollah attack. Its massive attack on Lebanon brought about large-scale retaliation, which subjected more than one million Israeli citizens to continuous rocket attacks, and resulted in hundred of thousands of refugees, with hundreds of people killed or maimed. They argue that the war strengthened the Hezbollah in Lebanon, and weakened Israeli deterrence.”

 

 
New Books

 
Athina Karatzogianni (ed.), Violence and War in Culture and the Media: Five Disciplinary Lenses (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012).

 
This edited volume examines theoretical and empirical issues relating to violence and war and its implications for media, culture and society.

 
This volume offers a varied analysis which has wider implications for several disciplines, thus providing the reader with a text that is both multi-faceted and accessible. The book introduces the current debates surrounding this topic through five particular lenses:

 


 
  • the historical involves an examination of historical patterns of the communication of violence and war through a variety sources
  • the cultural utilises the cultural studies perspective to engage with issues of violence, visibility and spectatorship
  • the sociological focuses on how terrorism, violence and war are remembered and negotiated in the public sphere
  • the political offers an exploration into the politics of assigning blame for war, the influence of psychology on media actors, and new media political communication issues in relation to the state and the media
  • the gender-studies perspective provides an analysis of violence and war from a gender studies viewpoint.

 

 
Movie of the Month – Mother and Child (2009)

 
The stories of several mothers are interwoven in this drama about motherhood: The longing to become a mother; the pains of motherhood; the heart-wrenching suffering of those who wish to evade motherhood. It is a sad story. The joy of motherhood hardly features in this film. It is about women. They dominate the film. Men play a secondary, most of the time flat and unassuming role. Men can be thoughtful, kind and sensitive, but they have nothing to say in motherhood. This film is about the hard, lonely world of mothers.

 


 
Karen (Annette Bening) gave birth to her only child when she was fourteen and gave her up for adoption. This momentous event ruined her life. Consumed by guilt, she was unable to establish any meaningful relationships with men. She lived with her mother until her mother died but both women did not really open themselves for one another. Karen knows she is “difficult”: judgmental, stubborn, opinionated, uncompromising, determined, strong-willed, and very lonely. Although her daughter plays very important part in her life, Karen never tried to look for her.

 
Everything changes when Paco (Jimmy Smits) enters her life. It was not easy for him to penetrate the stubborn-sturdy walls that Karen erected around herself but he finds a way, to Karen’s surprise. “Where did you come from?” she asks him. Karen’s opened to Paco’s abundant kindness, and quickly marries him. Paco “leads his way” to persuade her to look for her daughter, Elizabeth.

 
Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) had a very difficult life. From a very young age, she had to live alone and to force herself into the world. Ambitious, unflinching, smart, selfish with many qualities of her mother (judgmental, stubborn, opinionated, uncompromising, determined, strong-willed) she leads a lonely life in which she finds satisfaction. Happiness would be a big word to describe her condition and constant mood. She moves in and out of cities for unclear reasons but we can guess these constant moves were due to her difficult personality and the way she treats others, especially men: Use, play with and throw. Men are attracted to her like flies to light. Incapable of loving anyone, including herself, people are for her mere means to an end. Stubborn and fearful like her mother, Elizabeth never tried to look for her roots until she becomes pregnant at the age of 37. At about the same time, not knowing of one another, both Karen and Elizabeth deposit letters for each other in the adoption offices.

 
The third story is about Lucy (Kerry Washington) who is unable to conceive. To satisfy her husband’s yearning for a child, she turns to adoption to make the family they desire. Joseph, her husband, encapsulates the role of men in this film: he hardly speaks, with a flat personality and simple desires. Lucy does not really need him. Indeed, the road to adoption is especially difficult for Lucy but once she is able to have a child, she fails to understand that motherhood is indeed “all about her”: her child’s wishes, her milk, her sleep, her quality time. Lucy’s mother has to open her eyes to tell her that she is not special. Yes, this is motherhood (parenthood).

 
The film is built around two wonderful actresses: Naomi Watts and Annette Bening. Kerry Washington, Jimmy Smits and Samuel L. Jackson are in the supporting roles. It is very dense and very sad. There are no moments of comic relief and only seldom we see the magical, beautiful, happy moments of parenthood. There is only one striking episode of family life, to which Elizabeth enters quite astonished as she never experienced such a playful gathering in her own life. The movie, in many respects, is one sided as it highlights the pains of motherhood, not the joys, and it is about motherhood, not parenthood. The three main stories are about broken families. For many of us, luckily life is far more complex, with many shades of grey and pink, not only grey. Yet the film is captivating, moving, complex and beautifully-done.

 
Four stars in Rafi’s scale.

 

 
Monthly Poem

 
Winter Night

 
It snowed and snowed, the whole world over,
Snow swept the world from end to end.
A candle burned on the table;
A candle burned.

 
As during summer midges swarm
To beat their wings against a flame
Out in the yard the snowflakes swarmed
To beat against the window pane
The blizzard sculptured on the glass
Designs of arrows and of whorls.

 
A candle burned on the table;
A candle burned.
Distorted shadows fell
Upon the lighted ceiling:
Shadows of crossed arms, of crossed legs-
Of crossed destiny.

 
Two tiny shoes fell to the floor
And thudded.

 
A candle on a nightstand shed wax tears
Upon a dress.

 
All things vanished within
The snowy murk-white, hoary.

 
A candle burned on the table;
A candle burned.

 
A corner draft fluttered the flame
And the white fever of temptation
Upswept its angel wings that cast
A cruciform shadow
It snowed hard throughout the month
Of February, and almost constantly
A candle burned on the table;
A candle burned.

 


 
Boris Pasternak

 

 
Gem of the Month

 
AcroBallet

 
The Chinese invented a new mode of art which may be term AcroBallet. As the name suggests, it incorporates acrobatics and ballet. Old-fashioned ballet lovers would hate this. Others may like it. But see it and make up your own mind:

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjImCzpHZA&feature=related

 
Old Jaffa

 
Here are some photos, day and night, of one of my favourite places on earth: The beautiful and enchanting Old Jaffa.
Enjoy!!

 
http://www.photo3d.co.il/360/oldjaffa.co.il/

 

 
Light Side – British Humour

 
JOINING NUDIST COLONY!

 
Must sell washer and dryer $100.

 
WEDDING DRESS FOR SALE .

 
Worn once by mistake.
Call Stephanie.

 


 
FREE YORKSHIRE TERRIER.

 
8 years old,
Hateful little bastard.
Bites!

 
FOR SALE BY OWNER.

 
Complete set of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 45 volumes.
Excellent condition, $200 or best offer. No longer needed, got married, wife knows everything.

 


 
Statement of the Century

 
Thought from the Greatest Living Scottish Thinker--Billy Connolly.
"If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking,
How come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?"

 

 
Peace and love.

 
Yours as ever,

 
Rafi

 
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/
People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk
Follow me on Twitter at @almagor35

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Politics – January 2012



Fearful people always find reasons to confirm their worst fears.
Peace is hard to achieve; but its achievement is worth every effort, every dime, every sleepless night of coffee and deliberations.

~Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Iran Religious Summit
Israelis and Palestinians on the Present Situation
Two State Solution
Demography
UN: Gaza Blockade – Collective Punishment
Israel Concerned Over Syrian Non-Conventional Weapons 
Palestine in 1896
Book Review of Ahron Bregman, “Israel’s Wars” (London: Routledge, 2010),
Front Line seeking nominations for human rights defenders award
Index Freedom of Expression Awards
Movie of the Month - Sarah’s Key (2011)
Monthly Poems
Beautiful Time-Lapse Video Takes You Around the World in 6,237 Photos
Light Side – Life of Medics


This was a busy month in Israel, full of events and controversies. Women protested against their exclusion for public sphere by ultra-religious, Haredi groups, who believe that women's honour and dignity is reserved for the home. Then, in turn, we witnessed Haredi people protesting against the way they are presented by the secular people, still the majority in Israel.




Yair Lapid, the popular TV presenter, and the son of the former Minister of Justice Tomy Lapid, formally announced his entry into politics. It is too early to say whether he will make a difference. Taking votes from Kadima and Labour will not undermine the Likud seniority in the political map. Whether Lapid’s new party will be able to garner support among Likud supporters remains to be seen.

Kadima will hold its primaries in two-months time. Shaul Mofaz is challenging Tzipi Livni’s leadership. Mofaz needs to work tremendously hard to win.

Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, announced that he intends to compete in the Labour primaries. He feels that his political experience bringing about the release of his son from Hamas captivity equips him well to engage officially in all matters pertaining to Israeli politics.

In the USA, Mitt Romney is taking broad strides toward capturing the Republican Party presidential nomination.

On the personal front, I spent much of this month at home recuperating from surgery. NHS has provided very good care, I am pleased to say.


Iran Religious Summit
It is better to talk than to shoot. War should be the last resort after exhausting all other avenues. Here is an idea: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the Supreme leader of Iran who is calling the shots. He is a religious authority. He should meet Israeli Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious authorities, all committed to peace, in order to avert humanitarian disaster.

In July 2009, three Americans, Shane Bauer, Joshua Fattal and Sarah Shourd, were hiking the Kurdish region along the Iran-Iraq border. They unwittingly passed the border and were imprisoned in Iran for spying. In April 2010, retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu pleaded for Iran to release the American hikers. Pressing for the hikers’ release were also Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of the Archdiocese of Washington; the Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, an Episcopal bishop and interim dean of Washington National Cathedral; and my good friend William Miller, a former U.S. ambassador who helped bring home many Americans during the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis.



Thus it is possible to talk to Iran and reach positive results if the speakers enjoy religious standing and authority. Israel should invest in setting a meeting between Israeli religious leaders of different denominations and the Iranian religious leaders to discuss mutual avenues to promote humanitarian causes dear to the respective nations. Religious authorities understand one another as they speak in similar terms, with similar vocabulary. They are better equipped than politicians and military commanders to convey sensitive messages. This avenue of a religious summit should be exhausted before unleashing violence.


Israelis and Palestinians on the Present Situation
A December 2011 poll conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah showed an increase in support for the Clinton permanent settlement framework on both sides. 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians support a permanent settlement package along the Clinton parameters; 39% of Israelis and 49% of Palestinians oppose such a settlement. These results mark a significant increase in both sides’ willingness to compromise compared to recent years.

At the same time, both Palestinians and Israelis perceive the other side as opposing such a settlement: 61% of the Palestinians and 53% of the Israelis think so. About two thirds on both sides do not believe that it is possible to reach a final status settlement these days and see the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the near future as slim.

78% of Palestinians support Abbas’s conditions of an acceptable term of reference or a freeze on settlement construction for returning to negotiations, while 69% of Israelis think that Israel should not accept these conditions.

The Clinton parameters for a Palestinian-Israeli permanent settlement were presented by President Clinton on December 23, 2000, following the collapse of the July 2000 Camp David summit. The Geneva Initiative, along similar lines, was made public around the end of 2003. These parameters address the most fundamental issues which underlie the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: (1) Final borders and territorial exchange; (2) Refugees; (3) Jerusalem; (4) A demilitarized Palestinian state; (5) Security arrangements; and (6) End of conflict.

(1) Final Borders and Territorial Exchange

Among Palestinians 63% support or strongly support and 36% oppose or strongly oppose an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the exception of some settlement areas in less than 3% of the West Bank that would be swapped with an equal amount of territory from Israel in accordance with a map that was presented to the Palestinian respondents. The map was identical to that presented to respondents in December 2010, when support for this compromise, with its map, stood at 49% and opposition at 50% - an increase in support of 14 percentage points.

Among Israelis 51% support and 44% oppose a Palestinian state in the entirety of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip except for several large blocks of settlements in 3% of the West Bank which will be annexed to Israel. Israel will evacuate all other settlements, and the Palestinians will receive in return territory of similar size along the Gaza Strip. In December 2010, 49% of the Israelis supported this component while 43% opposed it.

(2) Refugees

Among Palestinians 45% support and 53% oppose a refugee settlement in which both sides agree that the solution will be based on UN resolutions 194 and 242. The refugees would be given five choices for permanent residency. These are: the Palestinian state and the Israeli areas transferred to the Palestinian state in the territorial exchange mentioned above; no restrictions would be imposed on refugee return to these two areas. Residency in the other three areas (in host countries, third countries, and Israel) would be subject to the decision of these states. As a basis for its decision Israel will consider the average number of refugees admitted to third countries like Australia, Canada, Europe, and others. All refugees would be entitled to compensation for their “refugeehood” and loss of property. In December 2010, 41% agreed with an identical compromise while 57% opposed it.

Among Israelis 42% support such an arrangement and 51% oppose it. In December 2010, 36% supported it and 52% opposed.

(3) Jerusalem

In the Palestinian public 40% support and 59% oppose a Jerusalem compromise in which East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state with Arab neighborhoods coming under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish neighborhoods coming under Israeli sovereignty. The Old City (including al Haram al Sharif) would come under Palestinian sovereignty with the exception of the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall that would come under Israeli sovereignty. In December 2010, an identical compromise obtained 36% support and 63% opposition.

Among Israelis, 38% agree and 60% disagree to the arrangement in which the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem including the old city and the Temple Mount will come under Palestinian sovereignty, the Jewish neighborhoods including the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall will come under Israeli sovereignty, East Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel. In December 2010, similarly, 38% supported this arrangement and 58% opposed it.

(4) Demilitarized Palestinian State

Among Palestinians 32% support and 67% oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that would have no army, but would have a strong security force and would have a multinational force deployed in it to ensure its security and safety. Israel and Palestine would be committed to end all forms of violence directed against each other. A similar compromise received in December 2010, 24% support, and opposition reached 74%.

This item receives the lowest level of support by Palestinians, as in previous polls, although the current level of support is the highest since 2003. Unlike the refugees and Jerusalem components, this issue has not received due attention in public discourse, as it should, since it may become a major stumbling block in the efforts to reach a settlement.

Among Israelis 67% support and 33% oppose this arrangement compared to 62% support and 34% opposition obtained in December 2010.

(5) Security Arrangements

In the Palestinian public 50% support and 49% oppose a compromise whereby the Palestinian state would have sovereignty over its land, water, and airspace, but Israel would have the right to use the Palestinian airspace for training purposes, and would maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. A multinational force would remain in the Palestinian state and in its border crossings for an indefinite period of time. The task of the multinational force would be to monitor the implementation of the agreement, and to monitor territorial borders and coast of the Palestinian state including the presence at its international crossings. This is a significant increase in support compared to December 2010, when 38% of the Palestinians supported this parameter while 61% opposed it.

In the Israeli public 63% support and 33% oppose this arrangement compared to 52% who supported it and 39% who opposed it in December 2010 – s similar increase in support as among Palestinians.

(6) End of Conflict

In the Palestinian public 63% support and 35% oppose a compromise on ending the conflict that would state that when the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. In December 2010 58% supported and 41% opposed this item.

In the Israeli public 70% support and 27% oppose this component in the final status framework. In December 2010, similarly, 68% of the Israelis supported it while 25% opposed it.

Expectations regarding the recognition by the UN of the Palestinian state

·         52% of Palestinians think that a state of Palestine will become a UN member in 2012, while 42% do not believe so. Among Israelis, 44% think this will happen while 49% do not believe so.
·         Palestinians were asked how they think Palestinians can force Israel to withdraw from the territories, if the UN recognizes the Palestinian state, and Israelis what they think Palestinians will do. 47% of Israelis think the Palestinians will resume the Intifada including armed confrontations, while 25% think they will start non-violent resistance such as peaceful demonstrations, and 17% think they will return to negotiations with the Israeli government. Palestinians however are split among these three options: 31% think peaceful non-violent resistance can force Israelis to withdraw; 30% think that armed attacks on army and settlers and 32% think that negotiations with Israeli can bring it to withdraw.

Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities

·       47% of Israelis support the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, 41% oppose it. 56% believe that the majority of the Israeli public supports such a strike, 25% think that a majority opposes it.
·       Palestinians are split in their evaluation whether Israel will actually carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities: 48% think it will strike, and 48% do not think so.
·       76% of Israelis think that if Israel were to carry out a military strike against Iran, Hamas and Islamic Jihad would retaliate by carrying out a military strike against Israel; 18% do not think so. 48% of Palestinians support such retaliation by Hamas and Islamic Jihad and 46% oppose it. 

Conflict management and threat perceptions  

·       Palestinians and Israelis support their government’s position with regard to return to negotiations. 78% of Palestinians support Abbas’s conditions for an acceptable term of reference or a freeze on settlement construction for returning to negotiations, while 20% oppose this policy. 69% of Israelis support Netanyahu’s position that Israel should not accept these conditions; 29% oppose this position.
·       Given the stalemate in the negotiations and the admittance of the Palestinians to UNESCO as a member state, 54% of the Israelis and 38% of the Palestinians think that armed attacks will not stop or even increase and the two sides will not return to negotiations. 37% of the Israelis and 28% of the Palestinians believe that negotiations will continue but some armed attacks will continue as well. Only 5% of Israelis and 27% of Palestinians believe negotiations will continue and armed confrontations will stop.
·       Among Israelis, 50% are worried and 48% are not worried that they or their family may be harmed by Arabs in their daily life, compared to 58% who are worried and 42% who are not worried in September 2011. Among Palestinians 70% fear that their security and safety and that of their family are not assured compared to 73% in September.
·      The level of threat on both sides regarding the aspirations of the other side in the long run is very high. 60% of Palestinians think that Israel’s goals are to extend its borders to cover all the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and expel its Arab citizens, and 22% think the goals are to annex the West Bank while denying political rights to the Palestinians. The modal category among Israelis is that the Palestinians’ aspirations in the long run are to conquer the State of Israel and destroy much of the Jewish population in Israel (45%); 22% think the goals of the Palestinians are to conquer the State of Israel. Only 17% of the Palestinians think Israel’s aspirations in the long run are to withdraw from part or all of the territories occupied in 1967; and 29% of Israelis think the aspirations of the Palestinians are to regain some or all of the territories conquered in 1967.



Two State Solution
I am calling for a two-state solution. This is the only possible solution to end the hostilities and to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All other “solutions” would yield violence, the end of Israel as a Jewish-democratic state, or the destruction of Israel as we know it today. The Israeli temple and what it symbolizes – Jewish sovereign community leading independent life of a free nation – was destroyed twice. We are now living the third temple. If we won’t learn from our mistakes, history might repeat itself. The writings on the wall are loud and clear.

On February 22, 2012 I am invited to present my ideas at Reading University. I’d be happy to deliver more talks upon invitation. This issue is far too important to be left to the terrorists, the zealots, and the builders.

Demography

According to the Israeli and Palestinian Central Bureaus of Statistics, in 2015 the number of Jews and Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will reach parity. From 2016 onwards, the Palestinians will have the majority.

Today, there are 5.6 million Palestinians and 5.8 million Jews;
There are 2.6 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and 1.6 million in the Gaza Strip.

In 2015, there will be 6.3 million Palestinians and 6.3 million Jews;
In 2020, 7.2 million Palestinians and 6.8 million Jews.

In the world there are presently 11.2 million Palestinians: 4.23 million in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; 4.99 in Arab countries; 1.37 million in Israel, and 636,000 in other countries.

It is an Israeli interest to establish peace with the Palestinians. The occupation cannot last forever. An apartheid State should not be established. Israel should retain its Jewish and democratic character. The only way to achieve both ends is a two state solution.



UN: Gaza Blockade – Collective Punishment
UN releases annual report on humanitarian conditions in Palestinian territories, asserting that food, sanitation and economic straits are dire due to Israeli occupation. The report paints a grim picture about the situation: food insecurity, isolation, violence and failing health and education services – all courtesy of the Israeli occupation. The number of civilian casualties rose in 2011 by more than 30% in Gaza and the West Bank compared to 2010.

"Serious protection and human rights issues, limited access to essential services and entrenched levels of food insecurity continue to characterize the day-to-day lives of many Palestinians," the report stated.

"Israeli authorities continued to impose a blockade on Gaza, amounting to collective punishment of the population and affecting every aspect of life in the Gaza Strip".

The report maintains that the policies that restrict the Gazans' access to areas with viable agriculture and fishing prospects constrain their livelihoods. Moreover, restrictions on the movement of goods and people into Gaza compromise the region's health, education and sanitation services.

The UN also addressed the situation in East Jerusalem, arguing that the Palestinian population there is growing isolated from the rest of the West Bank. Furthermore, the residents of Area C – which makes up 60% of the West Bank and is under Israeli control – have been facing escalating rates of home demolitions, settler violence and restricted travel.

"The threat to lives and livelihoods became too great for many, coping strategies were overwhelmed and an increasing number of Palestinians were displaced from their homes and their land".

"Progress in the peace process is desperately needed – the coping strategies of Palestinian communities are being eroded with each year that passes," the report said.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor slammed the Security Council for "wasting time on an issue that does not pose a humanitarian crisis." He noted that while Gaza saw a 28% growth in its Gross Domestic Product, 4 million Somalis are starving and people in Haiti, Sudan and Afghanistan don't have access to water.


Israel Concerned Over Syrian Non-Conventional Weapons
Israel is worried that the deepening instability in Syria could lead to thousands of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists.

Former Israeli Defense Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, said he fears the Lebanese-based militia could get its hands on weapons pile stockpiled in Syria: “We are talking in terms of thousands of missiles that might move to Hezbollah and might endanger the whole Middle East”.


Palestine in 1896
This is a short video filmed in Jerusalem in 1896.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/peace-in-palestine.html


Book Review of Ahron Bregman, “Israel’s Wars” (London: Routledge, 2010),
Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 24, No. 11 (2011), pp. 161-165.

This is the third edition of this book, first published in 2000. This interesting and readable book provides detailed accounts of the Israeli Independence War, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War and the two Lebanon wars. The book offers far less detailed accounts of the Sinai 1956 War, and the 1968-1970 War of Attrition. Bregman also analyses the 1987-1993 Intifada, and the so-called Al-Aqsa intifada (2000-2005) although both cannot be called wars in conventional terms. Bregman’s distinctive insights relate to the Liberty affair during the Six Day War, and the significant role of the Egyptian double agent in the Yom Kippur War.



The Israeli Independence War

Bregman explains that the war started after the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The initial phase was characterized by Arab attacks on Jewish convoys and street fighting in Tel Aviv-Jaffa and in the Old City of Jerusalem. In this first phase, the Jewish Haganah was stronger than the Arab opposition. It comprised 45,000 men and women. In addition, the two smaller paramilitary organizations – Irgun and Lehi – contributed some 3,000 fighters. The Arab force was comparatively smaller, and it lacked central coordination, facts that Bregman highlights. However, merely counting troops would not suffice. Bregman fails to mention that many of the new immigrants came from the ruins of Europe, marred and scarred by the Nazi machinery utilized with all its might to destroy them. Many did not have a common language, and did not speak the local language, Hebrew. These people, who survived the Holocaust, were immediately thrown into yet another war.

Sinai 1956 War

From its inception in May 1948, Israel had to face hostile neighbours that refused to come to terms with its very existence. The second major war broke out mere eight years after the Independence War. Bregman dedicates only six pages to this war. This is a major weakness of the book. Readers are advised to read other sources to understand the reasons for this war, its complexities and outcomes. Bregman’s analysis is very deficient.

The Six Day War

Bregman’s analysis of the Six Day War is solid. He explains the events leading to the war and its conduct. Israel certainly did not want this war. It was imposed on it by the Egyptian leader. Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was carried away by his own hostile rhetoric and started a snowball process where one move led to another (entering troops into Sinai; ordering the UN peace-keeping force to leave; closing the Straits of Tiran, which constituted a clear casus belli from Israel’s standpoint), bringing about the escalation that pushed Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike on June 5, 1967. That pre-emptive strike largely decided the outcome of the war.

Bregman sheds light on a side episode that took place on June 8, 1967. On that day, Israel launched an attack on the American spy ship Liberty. As a result, 34 US sailors died and 171 wounded. From the recordings of the conversation over the radio system of the Israeli pilots during the attack, it is revealed that the Israeli commanders did know of the air attack on the ship, and before the navy moved in to launch the final knockout, that Liberty was an American vessel (p. 89). According to Bregman, Israel wished to prevent the US from following the events closely as it was mobilizing forces in the Galilee in order to seize the Golan Heights.

War of Attrition

This war, which Bregman calls, with some justification, “The forgotten war” is quite neglected in the book. He does not forget the war but his 9-page short analysis leaves the reader with many question marks. This was a nagging war, with no glorious battles, no celebrations and photo-op, just a constant drip of more casualties with no ends in sight. Between March 1969 to August 1970, 138 Israeli soldiers were killed and 375 wounded. A total of 400 Israelis were killed and more than 2,000 wounded between the end of the 1967 war and August 1970, the day of the ceasefire between Israel and Egypt (p. 101). The scale of the Egyptian losses is believed to be much weightier; some claim it to be around 10,000 dead or wounded.

Yom Kippur War

The next war took place in 1973. Bregman describes President Anwar el-Sadat’s peace initiative of 1971, which was utterly rejected with no proper consideration by Prime Minister Golda Meir. Israel clarified to Sadat that the key to reach a compromise is by force. Sadat shifted to a militant position and began to prepare his army for war. Bregman gives much weight to the role played by Ashraf Marwan, son-in-law of Gamal Abdel Nasser, a man with good connections in all the right places. Israel hired his services without realizing that he was a double agent.  Marwan fooled the Israelis and helped to create one of the major deceptions in modern warfare.

Israel's wrong conception was that Egypt would wage war on Israel only after it had obtained advanced fighter-bombers and Scuds (p. 114). The conception was built upon Marwan’s analysis. In truth, however, Sadat realized that Moscow was unlikely to provide him with those weapons. Furthermore, Marwan embarked on a successful disinformation campaign. He told Israel that Sadat will attempt to attack on May 15, 1973. The Israeli leaders took his warning seriously. On April 19, Israel mobilized its reserve forces. It dispersed them on August 12. This futile mobilization cost Israel a fortune - $45 million dollars and it had critical implications. When Sadat mobilized forces in early October, the recent false mobilization that exhausted vital resources was fresh in the government ministers’ minds, and they hesitated to call up the reserves again, fearing another costly false alarm. The wrong conception, together with misplaced self-confidence and fear of criticism, brought about a successful Egyptian campaign at the start of hostilities. Israel even ignored an explicit warning of its neighbour, King Hussein, who on September 25, 1973 flew to Israel to meet Golda Meir to tell her that the Syrian army was preparing for war (p. 119). Thus, on the eve of the 1973 Yom Kippur (October 6) 450 Israeli troops had to face the entire Egyptian army (p. 126). Mobilization of reserves started only the same day at around 10 a.m. Bregman critically writes that the “initial success of Egypt and Syria was partly due to the foolishness and ineptitude of Israel’s leadership” (p. 131). The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) lost 2,569 men, with 7,251 wounded and 314 taken prisoners.

The Lebanon War

On June 3, 1982, an Abu Nidal Group (a terror organization opposed to the PLO) terrorist shot and maimed Shlomo Argov, the Israeli Ambassador to London. This was the trigger to a long, unnecessary war that divided Israeli society for many years. Operation Peace for Galilee was intended by Prime Minister Begin to last no more than 48 hours, aimed to destroy the PLO in a radius of 40 kilometres north of the Israeli border. Bregman argues that Defence Minister Ariel Sharon had different plans in mind. Sharon aimed at reaching the gates of Beirut and to engage with the Syrian military force in Lebanon. Those aims were not known to the Israeli cabinet that authorized the operation (p. 170). The siege of Beirut led to the PLO departure from Lebanon. Arafat and his men were forced to move to Tunis. Many in Israel also rejoiced on August 23, 1982, when its ally the Maronite Christian leader Bashir Gemayel was elected President of Lebanon. For the first time in Israel’s short history, the IDF was inside an Arab capital, holding strategic positions inside Beirut. These perceived achievements, however, soon crumbled. On September 14, President Gemayel was assassinated. On September 16-18, 1982, Christian Phalangists militia, headed by Elie Hobeika, massacred some 1,700 refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps under the watch of Israeli battalions. Many citizens in Israel were shocked and appalled. A movement called Soldiers against Silence was established, calling for the removal from office of Ariel Sharon and for an immediate end to the war (p. 176).   The war was very costly: Between June 5, 1982, and May 31, 1985, 1,216 soldiers died. In 1985, Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon, with the exception of a security zone extending eight miles into south Lebanon to protect Israeli civilians from terror attacks. Only on May 24, 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak was in power, did Israel withdraw completely from Lebanon, ending a 22-year military presence there.

The Second Lebanon War

The Second Lebanon War, known also as the Israel-Hezbollah War, was the second war of choice. On July 12, 2006, the Hezbollah terrorist organization attacked two Israeli Defense Forces' armoured Hummer jeeps patrolling along the border with gunfire and explosives, in the midst of massive shelling attacks on Israel's north. Three soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) began heavy artillery and tank fire. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert convened the government on July 12, 2006 to decide Israel’s reaction. The government agreed that the attack had created a completely new situation on the northern border, and that Israel must take steps that will "exact a price", and restore its deterrence. The Israeli-Hezbollah War had started after one rushed and short governmental meeting, without realizing the full implications of the decision. The war ended on August 14, 2006 when the UN Security Council Resolution (no. 1701) went into force. As was the case in the 1982 Lebanon War, during the war voices of protest were heard in Israel, mainly from reserve service soldiers, journalists, and distinguished writers. After the war, thousands of people demanded the establishment of a national inquiry committee to investigate the war's events and called for the resignation of the war architects: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Minister of Defence Amir Peretz, and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. Later Halutz and Olmert resigned their respective offices, while Peretz lost in the internal Labour elections to Ehud Barak and was ousted from the Ministry of Defence.

The Palestinian Uprising and Terror Attacks

Bregman dedicates two chapters to the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993, and to the so-called Al-Aqsa intifada of 2000-2005. I write “so-called” because the latter awakening was largely dictated from above, by the PLO leadership that also equipped its people with weapons to shoot Israelis. Whereas the 1987-1993 intifada was a popular uprising of people throwing stones in the main, the latter was an orchestrated terror campaign mobilized from above.

Conclusion

Israel’s Wars is a concise, useful resource for students and other interested people who wish to understand the causes and conduct of some of the Israeli wars from 1948 until now. Bregman’s clear language and ability to focus on the most important factors leading to the wars makes the book accessible to the general public. Its Index and Select Bibliography are certainly valuable though the latter requires an update. Some of the book’s chapters (1, 3, 4, 5 and 8) are recommended for any course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the fourth edition, it is recommended to treat the 1956 War and the War of Attrition as comprehensively as the other wars are treated. The book requires a further edition as, unfortunately, Israel waged another limited war, this time on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009 (operation “Cast Lead”). While Israel is justified to protect its citizens from terror, the out-of-proportion attack on civilians was staggering and has subjected Israel to continued criticism. No doubt, Bregman has his own thoughts about this operation. I hope he will update this most important book for the benefit of more readers interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict.


Front Line seeking nominations for human rights defenders award
Front Line is seeking nominations for the 2012 Front Line Defenders Award, which honours the work of human rights defenders at risk. The deadline for nominations is 30 January 2012.

The 15,000-Euro (US$19,400) award focuses international attention on the work of a human rights defender or a group of human rights defenders who, through non-violent work, are courageously making an outstanding contribution to the promotion and protection of the human rights of others, often at great personal risk to themselves.





http://www.ifex.org/international/2012/01/04/front_line_human_rights_defender_award/

Index Freedom of Expression Awards
The 12th annual Index Freedom of Expression Awards will be held on 28 March. They will honour those who, often at great personal risk, have given voice to issues and stories from around the globe that would otherwise have passed unnoticed.

The awards recognise:

·         High quality work that promotes and defends free expression
·         Work that took place or was created during 2011 and reflects current issues

Index on Censorship 40th Anniversary award

A special award in celebration of our 40th anniversary, recognising an organisation or individual who has done outstanding work in defence of free expression

Journalism award

This award recognises journalism of dogged determination and bravery

Innovation award

This award recognises the use of computer or internet technology to foster debate, argument or dissent. Nominations can also include those who enhance online freedom through the use of new technologies

Arts award

Recognising visual and creative arts that support or promote freedom of expression, or artists facing censorship for their work

Advocacy award

Awarded to campaigners who have fought repression, or have struggled to change political climates and perceptions

Send your nominations to awards[at]indexoncensorship.org or post them in the comment section below by Wednesday 25th January 2012.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/01/index-freedom-of-expression-awards-2012/

Movie of the Month - Sarah’s Key (2011)

This is a story about a key that affected the lives of two families across two generations. It startled them, moved them and changed them forever, bringing darkness, destruction and death but also light, redemption and life.



Sarah’s Key is based on a novel written by Tatiana de Rosnay (http://www.amazon.com/Sarahs-Key-Tatiana-Rosnay/dp/0312370849). The novel was rejected time and again by many publishers until one accepted it. The book became a best seller, was translated to dozens of languages, and made into this film.

Sarah and her little brother Michele are playing in their bedroom. They are joyful and happy. Their mother is in the living room. This is a normal episode that takes place in many homes. The period, however, is anything but normal. It is Paris, July 1942. The serenity is interfered by loud knocks on the door. “Open the Door. Police”. The mother hesitates. Sarah (Mélusine Mayance), a curious ten-year girl, steps out the bedroom to see what is going on. Her mother opens the door. Two French officers enter the living room and order the mother to pack some essential things and to come with them. They have a list of all occupants of the home. They ask where the father and the little child, Michele, are. The mother, who understands that this cannot be good, says she does not know. Sarah quietly withdraws to her bedroom. She tells Michele that they need to play a game. She asks him to hide in the closet, gives him some water, asks him to be very quiet and promises him she will return, soon. Both Michele and Sarah know that Sarah takes her promises very seriously. Michele quietly enters the closet. Sarah closes the door behind him and takes the key with her.

Sarah and her mother are taken away. Soon the father joins them and with thousands of other Jews they are taken to the notorious Vel' D'Hiv (http://www.massviolence.org/the-vel-d-hiv-round-up). Sarah is determined to return home to rescue Michele. She promised him. She holds the closet key close to heart. This is the key to her future.

Sixty seven years later, Sarah’s story intertwines with that of Julia Jarmond (Kristin Scott Thomas), an American journalist in Paris who takes upon herself to investigate the Jewish roundup and discovers that she and Sarah have something in common. In her research, Julia stumbles onto a trail of family secrets and, as a devoted journalist, she is determined to unveil the truth no matter how painful the truth might be. Sarah’s key would change her life, and the life of Sarah’s child who knew little about his mother’s identity and past.



Mélusine Mayance and Kristin Scott Thomas are credible, sensitive and incredible. This is nothing unusual for Scott Thomas. It is the first time that Mayance comes to my attention. She has a great future.

Sarah’s Key is the best movie I have seen this year.


Monthly Poems

A Game of Chess

                Played in Washington and Tehran



The pieces on the chessboard
The powerful and even the pawns
Neither white nor black
Make a move
                                                Frozen.

Frozen by a dark fear
That a weakness
Would be discovered
And the stalemate
                                                Broken.



William Miller and Rafi Cohen-Almagor at a poetry reading, Wilson Cente

William Miller


A Calendar of Sonnets: January

O Winter! frozen pulse and heart of fire,
What loss is theirs who from thy kingdom turn
Dismayed, and think thy snow a sculptured urn
Of death! Far sooner in midsummer tire
The streams than under ice. June could not hire
Her roses to forego the strength they learn
In sleeping on thy breast. No fires can burn
The bridges thou dost lay where men desire
In vain to build.
O Heart, when Love's sun goes
To northward, and the sounds of singing cease,
Keep warm by inner fires, and rest in peace.
Sleep on content, as sleeps the patient rose.
Walk boldly on the white untrodden snows,
The winter is the winter's own release.



Helen Hunt Jackson





Beautiful Time-Lapse Video Takes You Around the World in 6,237 Photos
This stunning time-lapse video puts you in the passenger seat of one man’s almost year-long adventure across 17 countries.

http://mashable.com/2012/01/13/time-lapse-video-around-the-world/

Light Side – Life of Medics

1. A man comes into the ER and yells . . .'
My wife's going to have her baby in the cab.'
I grabbed my stuff, rushed out to the cab, lifted the lady's dress and began to take off her underwear.
Suddenly I noticed that there were several cabs - - - and I was in the wrong one.

Submitted by Dr. Mark MacDonald ,

San Francisco



2. While acquainting myself with a new elderly patient, I asked, 'How long have you been bedridden?'
After a look of complete confusion she answered .. . .
'Why, not for about twenty years - when my husband was alive.'

Submitted by Dr. Steven Swanson-

Corvallis, OR

3. A nurse was on duty in the Emergency Room when a young woman with purple hair styled  into a punk rocker Mohawk, sporting  a variety of tattoos, and wearing strange clothing, entered ... It was quickly determined that the patient had acute appendicitis, so she was scheduled for immediate surgery... When she was completely disrobed on the operating Table, the staff noticed that her pubic hair had been dyed green and above it there was a Tattoo that read ...'Keep off the grass.'

Once the surgery was completed, the surgeon wrote a short note on the patient's dressing, which said 'Sorry ... Had to mow the lawn.'

Submitted by RN no name



Peace and love.

Yours as ever,

Rafi


My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/

Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/



People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Follow me on Twitter at @almagor35